The court also held that the applicant had failed to prove that he had suffered any damage in respect of the head physician’s action. The applicant appealed.

    The Budapest Court of Appeal, after having held two hearings, upheld the first-instance decision on 22 September 2004.

It held that the applicant was on the wanted list and that the investigation had been stayed on those grounds.

by the Commission on 11 July 1990 and by the Government of Austria on 1 October 1990;        Whereas in its judgment of 28 August 1991 the Court:   -     held

The trial court held the first hearing on 17 May 2005. In 2005 it held in   total 5 hearings.

However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage and that it should award the full sum claimed under this head – 400 euros (the approximate equivalent of HUF 100,000).

He sued the Head of the Passport and Visa Department at the Regional Directorate of the Interior for preventing him from having access to documents related to a delay in issuing his new foreign passport

Lastly, he said that he was very familiar with Scorpio sub-machine guns. 23.

She is very short-sighted in both eyes and suffers from degenerative retina.

She issued proceedings against a former employer for the recovery of sums due to her and to formalise her dismissal.

    The head of state of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the King) is represented by the Governor.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The Court held, by 14 votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Accordingly, it held unanimously in all six cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

The court held that the letter of the Head of Parliament Security had not constituted an administrative decision.

The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.

It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Police officer B. asked officer C.: “What the hell did you do?!” C. did not respond with anything intelligible but remained still, holding his head in his hands.