On 5 October and 16 November 1994 and 24 January 1995, the court held hearings. 8.

The Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.

“Overall, E.G., the head of the PSL campaign team and a parliamentary candidate at the same time, added in just two months the considerable sum of 121,533 zlotys in funds to M.G.’s bank account.

    On 31   May   1994 the court held a viewing of the site. The next hearing was held on 21   October   1994. 10.

It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

It held that such reasoning was incompatible with respect for the presumption of innocence.

As security for this guarantee the applicants deposited a sum of money with the British branch of the National Bank of Greece.

  Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   2.

  In the course of the arrest she had not knocked her head against a window-sill.

The Court also notes the minor sum of money at stake.

The Court also awarded a global sum of EUR   9,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.

It held that there was no general rule that counsel was, or was not, immune from liability in settling a case or in advising a client to settle.

According to his statements, two senior directors from the Ministry of the Interior, namely the head of the Ministry’s Internal Protection and Intelligence Department and the head of the Anti ‑

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3.

The first applicant suffers from muscular dystrophy and is only able to move his head and hands. In 2010 the prosecution authorities opened against him criminal proceedings for usury. 1.

In August and November 2019, the applicant company turned to the Barabás family, the owners and managing directors of Hell Energy Magyarország Kft (“Hell Energy”), a Hungarian energy drink manufacturer

The Court held that there had not been a violation of Article 13, which did not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a law to be challenged.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

It held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 with regard to the flat in Beyoğlu.