The court held as follows: “On the basis of [the submitted documents] it appears that [the applicant] is the head of the department of pharmacology at the [Yaroslavl State Medical Academy], so a person

    On 11 May and 5 November 2001 hearings were held.

- heads of the charges.

Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him altogether 8,000 EUR under that head, in respect of both proceedings. B.     Costs and expenses 36.

She further stated that her son had likewise told her that he had not hit V.M. but had only held him. 10.

Secondly: In respect of sums subject to legal claims under French law, should a distinction be made between the part of the sum awarded under the head of pecuniary damage and the part awarded under the

The Act was replaced with the 2012 Lustration Act (see sub-heading B. below). B.

Tribunals held that no compensation should be granted to applicant - outcome of proceedings directly decisive for applicant's right to compensation.

It thus held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of failure to maintain equality of arms.

    On 27 April 1993 the court held a hearing. B.     Facts after 1 May 1993 9.     On 17 March 1994 the court held a hearing. 10.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3.

He owns cars that run on the maxi-taxi routes and that bring in large sums of money”.

The fact that he asked for adjournments to prepare his defence cannot be held against him.

    In the hearing held on 16 May 1995, the court dismissed these requests as being irrelevant to the outcome of the case. 18.

During this period the applicant continued working as the head of the kindergarten. 19.

On 19   October 2000 the District Court held a hearing. 18.

The Court further held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint raised under Article 6 § 1.

    On 2   April   1996 the court held a hearing. At the next hearing held on 23   July   1996 the applicant modified his claim.

The court also held that it had no competence to examine the applicant’s complaint about the allegedly appalling conditions of detention.