On 20   December   1996 the court held a hearing. 16.

The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 11.

    The third hearing was held on 23   March   1995.

The Court therefore held unanimously that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been violated.

Under the head of non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed a sum of 36,   336 euros (EUR). 62.     The Government did not comment on the applicant's claim. 63.

The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which each applicant will receive a sum for any non-pecuniary damage (ITL 4,550,000,000 in total).

They were all awarded sums for salary arrears, life-term judicial benefits and compensation for delay in their payment from the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury.

It therefore held unanimously there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1.

After that the applicant lay down on the pavement and the other activists followed suit and clung onto various parts of the applicant’s body.

The heads of damage covered by those rules are exhaustively listed and the quantum of damages (in the form of annuity or capital) is a lump-sum amount.

It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 40,000, to cover all heads of damage, and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.

Article 13 – On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court had held that the respondent State’s responsibility had been engaged under Article 3.

In addition, the sums paid to Mr Chagnon and Mr Fournier had amounted to 84.5% and 72%, respectively, of the experts’ evaluation.

The domestic courts held that the State was liable and awarded damages to the applicant.

The court held as follows: “...

The court held a further hearing on 25   October   1993. 7.

, by sixteen votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; - held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in

.., de la Société française de prévention, de la Compagnie Axa Courtage et de la Caisse des dépôts et consignations ; "aux motifs que Gilles X... était responsable assurance qualité de la Société Heli-Ouest

The Court has consistently held that the assessment of tax and the imposition of surcharges fall outside the scope of Article 6 under its civil head (see Ferrazzini v.