2166/1993 and ordering the return to the college of auditors of sums received during the transitional period.

    On 8 August 1996 the trial court resumed the proceedings and held a hearing.

It held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Accordingly, it also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

The head of the precinct electoral commission (“the PEC”) ordered him to stop filming.

One man's head was shaved by a group of chanting assailants.

It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3.

The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in these four cases.

The sums claimed include value-added tax (VAT). 51.

Without saying a word, he shot Mr T. in the head.

The facility’s shower room was equipped with twelve shower heads.

s request; he had continued to be held in detention for another thirty days despite the court ruling regarding his release.

Mazy, Mr Stalport, Mr Hermanus and Mr Javeau that no law on procedure had been enacted pursuant to Article 103 of the Constitution; - held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of

, would choose not to call an ambulance and medical help, but instead would race to vote for “progressive socialism”.

They saw those sums as pecuniary damage.

He claimed an amount equivalent to the sum as indicated above (namely EUR 14,000,000).

In view of the similar patterns surrounding the cases, it was held to be vital to form a general strategy to help elucidate a number of questions common to the cases as well as to review the adequacy of

Six hearings were held by the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal and a final decision was delivered on 10 March 2009. The court of appeal partially allowed the motions.

The first hearing was held on 26 March 1993.