On 4 March 2002 the Turku Court of Appeal ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ), having held an oral hearing, issued its judgment concerning the criminal head of the proceedings.

It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

    In so far as the Government claimed that the applicant's form of authority should have been certified by the head of the detention facility where he was held, the Court reiterates that it

rapport de M. le conseiller CULIE, les observations de Me CHOUCROY, avocat en la Cour, et les conclusions de M. l'avocat général LIBOUBAN ; Statuant sur le pourvoi formé par : La SOCIETE FACTO-FRANCE-HELLER

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

It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.

Hellner, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3.

A person who had covered his head with a hood and his face with a puşi [1] was seen in the photographs.

  The court held that, under the Banks Act of 1997, it had limited jurisdiction in proceedings concerning winding up an insolvent bank.

That assistance was not provided in addition to any care dispensed by health care professionals, and the prisoner assigned to help the applicant had not received the training required to assist a person

Ever since, he is 100% disabled, suffers from incontinence, and only moves in a wheelchair.   Between 25 February and 15 December 2006, Mr Engel was detained in Szeged Prison.

Par acte du 5 juillet 2022, les époux [W] ont fait assigner Mme [Y] en responsabilité civile devant le tribunal judiciaire d'Avesnes-sur-Helpe.

It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.

As the applicant company failed to pay the sums due, the fines were increased and the authorities issued an order to pay, against which the applicant company appealed.

    During the hearing held on 28 April 1987 the court took evidence from an expert. 18.     The next hearing was held on 19 May 1987.

  The Court further held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints submitted by the applicant under Article 3.

  The Court held: unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the abduction of the applicant’s son, allegedly by

A medical examination nevertheless concluded that the applicant could be held in custody in an Investigative Detention Centre (hospital).

France (n°   61166/00, decision of 12 June 2001) it had held that, having regard to the developments in the domestic case-law, an application under Article L.