An NGO for the protection of women’s rights (of which the applicant was director) intervened in a family dispute between D.O. and his wife C.O. following a request for help from C.O.

    Between April 2007 and June 2010 a total of four hearings were held out of ten scheduled hearings. 8.

  The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention because no oral hearing was held in the appeal proceedings.

held, by six votes to one, that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

  1 and held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   6 §   1.

    On 22 March 1995 the court held the first hearing. 8.     Subsequently, hearings were held on 1 February, 7   March and 15   October 1996. 9.

He then drove to the home of the Deputy Head Master where he shot and injured the Deputy Head Master and killed his son.

The applicant crossed the street with the help of his two colleagues and lost consciousness.

  The Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in English.)

He subsequently became deputy head of that party’s parliamentary faction.

Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on both counts.

    The Doctor M.Y., who had examined the applicant on the day of the incident, maintained, inter alia , that the applicant's head injury could have been caused either by a blow on the head with

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 10.

When he failed to pay back the borrowed sum within the time allowed he transferred his flat to M.S.

    Criminal head 17.

    The applicant challenged the decision of the head of the regional Bailiffs’ service but the domestic courts upheld it on the grounds that, by law, the heads of the Bailiffs’ Services had

speedily; Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Government of Poland on 17 August 1998 and by the applicant on 7 August 1998; Whereas in its judgment of 25 March 1999 the Court: - held

By a decision of 19 October 2011 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional complaint.

In both cases, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1.