According to the applicant the article gave the impression that the accused were guilty although they had not yet been convicted.

The criminal proceedings – There were contradictions between the reports that had been delivered at different times by the competent expert body.

They added that the case was not especially complex and that they had not hindered the proceedings in any way. 77.

It is observed in that connection that the initial reasons for the prison staff members’ involvement were that they were concerned that he might harm himself and wanted to take care of him during his imprisonment

    The Government argued that the above conclusion was supported by an analysis of the Court’s case-law, which a much more active interference than the mere display of a symbol for there to

There had been no indications that outpatient examination or treatment had been necessary.

It observed that the matter had not been complex and that there had been no justification for the proceedings lasting more than five and a half years.

that they have received.

In particular, they indicated that the compensation proceedings initiated by the first applicant were still pending and that the second applicant should have used the same remedy.

” group and that they would fire at Greek-Cypriot demonstrators.

fact that there had been no order to evict the tenants.

The experts admitted also that there had been no certainty that the ultrasound system in the Limanowa hospital had been in working order.

  They point out that decisions as to costs are within the discretion of the court, and there is no right to an award of costs.

Consequently, where the domestic courts failed to comply with that requirement, the Court considered that a compensatory remedy could in theory be regarded as effective on condition that it could result

When he later requested to be released on account of his ill-health, they also held that there were no special circumstances for releasing him on that account.

    They emphasised that the statements in issue were necessary in the specific context of the case.

that the applicant company failed to break down the costs and show that they had actually been incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. 50.

In a judgment of 25 February 2014 (see Information Note   177 ), a Chamber of the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.

than to a specific page of the website” and that it would be contrary to the terms of that judgment to grant the applicant’s claim.