The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Portugal (No. 35382/97 ), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning

The Court held, by 14 votes to 3, that there had been no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life).

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) because the applicant had been

  The Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life) on account of the fact that it had

Furthermore, the role of the social welfare authorities was precisely to help people in difficulty, to offer them guidance and to advise them.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

France (no. 53971/00) The applicant, D.P., is a French national who was born in 1951 and is currently being held at the Esses Villeneuve-sur-Lot Detention Centre.

Greece, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights

    The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   13.   The Court awarded him 3,500 Euros for non-pecuniary damage.

  The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect of one’s home) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Adresse 1] [Localité 4] représenté par Me Nicole BENSOUSSAN, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : A0868 INTIMÉS SCP [X]-[J] prise en la personne de Me [X] - Co-Mandataire liquidateur de SAS HELIO

    The trial was held on 12 November 2001.

votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the first applicant;   - held, unanimously, that there

On 8 June 1998 the court held a hearing. One of the co-accused did not appear. At the hearing held on 18 June 1998 one of the lawyers did not appear.