The Court heard addresses by Mr Gain for the Government, by Mr Soyer for the Commission and by Mrs Waquet for the applicant. 6.

  The applicants therefore contend that any attempt to address a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or Article 14 of the Convention before the United Kingdom courts would be unsuccessful whether

    Merits 1. The Government 43.

          The Court heard addresses by them as well as replies to questions put by the Court and by one of its members.   7.

    Merits 1.     General principles 48.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

    Merits 1.     The parties’ arguments 32.

It had also erred by not duly analysing the evidence and focusing only on the actual treatment provided to the child, thus failing to address several distinct aspects of the claim: her hospitalisation

    Merits (a)     Credibility of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of the police officers and the presumption of fact 50.

    Merits 1.     Article 5 § 1 (c) a.     The parties’ submissions 48.

Finally, the Constitutional Court held that it lacked the power to address the fairness of criminal proceedings which were pending before the Russian authorities.

The third applicant made no submissions as to the Council and the fifth did not address the likelihood of such an invitation (see paragraphs 40-44, above).

    The Government submitted that the applicant had not complained of an actual breach of the Convention but merely about hypothetical or theoretical possibilities of a violation, because no

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

J. was merely a camera operator and had no influence on the station’s policy or on the broadcasting of the inaccurate information about the applicant. 19.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Baudillon for the Government, Mr Soyer for the Commission and Mr Divier for the applicant, as well as their replies to its questions. 8.

    Although the Government have not raised an objection as regards the applicability of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court considers that it   must   address this issue of its

    On 21 March 2012 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant company’s appeal on points of law inadmissible due to lack of merit.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Martínez, Mr Muñiz Vega and Mr   Borrego Borrego. AS TO THE FACTS I.   the CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.