Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   10.

    On 15   September   2000 the court held a hearing and ordered another expert opinion. Subsequent hearings were held on 23   April and 23   May   2001.

The head prosecutor held that the applicant’s statements and those of the witnesses T.C.S., G.M.S., I.C. and G.C. were rebutted by the forensic evidence available to the file and by the statements of the

    The District Court held a further hearing on 26   August 1988.

In rejecting the application, the judge held that the school was not the cause of the respondent's lack of suitable education between 13 July and the end of the summer term on 20 July because his family

It further held that those expressions were intended as statements of fact rather than value judgments.

The servicemen also put guns to their heads and threatened to execute them.

On 10   May 2000 the District Court held a hearing in the applicant’s case. 10.

However, he refused to open an investigation into the matter and took the view that the Head of the National Police had proceeded lawfully throughout.

The stolen items are a mobile telephone case, MP3 headphones, a mobile telephone battery, and a sum of money.

    However, the court held that the land in issue had not belonged exclusively to Nicolae Lupaş, who had merely been one of the co-owners.

  Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

She [argued that she had] refused medical help only because her trust in doctors had been shattered.

When the applicant tried to help his friend, the men punched the applicant in the face and head several times, causing him to fall to the ground, where they kicked him in the head.

irrépétibles, condamné la SCI Helder II à payer à M.

  In 1995 the applicant wished to hold a Druidic service at the summer solstice on 21 June, at the Hele Stone which is near to a main road and close to the monument "Stonehenge" (in recent years the

The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 13.

    Between 12 February 1994 and 4 February 1996 no hearings were held. 17.

  The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights under two heads; a violation of Article 5 § 4; and a violation