04/2026 **** MINUTE ÉLECTRONIQUE : N° RG 25/02922 - N° Portalis DBVT-V-B7J-WHO3 Ordonnance de référé (N° 24/00139) rendue le 08 novembre 2024 par le tribunal judiciaire d'Avesnes-sur-Helpe

The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Il a demandé au service comptable la balance générale des sociétés Hélice et Groupe Hélice.

[M] [P] au paiement de 30 000 euros au titre du boni de liquidation de la société Hélios Consultants, - lui attribuer sans contrepartie le véhicule dont la carte grise est au nom de la société Helios Consultants

  The applicants were held at gun point in their room while the servicemen conducted a thorough search of the premises which took about one hour.

  The Court held, by 12 votes to five, that there had been no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  That being the case, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the death of the applicant’s father.

The Court held unanimously that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision.   1.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.

The Court also held unanimously that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was not applicable.

A hearing was held on 3   April   2012.

On 27 February 2001 a religious meeting of several hundred Jehovah’s Witnesses held in Tbilisi was disrupted by followers of Basil Mkalavishvili.

The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.

A hearing was held in Strasbourg on 3 June 2004.

It also held that it was envisaging religious activities and accordingly had to register with the Council of Ministers prior to seeking court registration.

The Board held an oral hearing at which the first and second applicants were present with their lawyers and witnesses testified.

In a Chamber judgment of 10 June 2003 the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.