Further hearings before the District Court were held on 8 June 2009 and 9 September 2009.

The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. Mr R.

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

On 28 March 1998 the High Court held that the Regional Court was competent to deal with the applicants’ case. 27.     On 30 October 1998 the Regional Court held a hearing.

Il résulte de l'arrêt attaqué et des pièces de procédure ce qui suit. 2. L'activité de la société [4], devenue la société [2] ([2]) à partir de janvier 2012, gérée par M.

Consequently, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had not been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

    On 24 August 2011 the applicant was examined by the head of the SIZO medical unit.

The letter had been signed by seventeen individuals, including the head of the Dalnerechensk municipal council and his first deputy, the deputy head of the town police, the deputy head of the local department

of the Convention by reason of the unilateral character (caractère non contradictoire) of the factual inquiry carried out by the Supreme Court in examining the applicant's plea of nullity;   - held

; Whereas in its judgment of 7 July 1989 the Court:   - declared unanimously that the Government were estopped   from relying on the rule that domestic remedies must be exhausted;   - held

;   - held unanimously that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), had been violated during the currency of the parental rights resolution;   - held by fourteen votes to three that it was not necessary

Leaving the head uncovered is not mentioned in those.

by six votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) in respect of the prohibition on removal;        - held unanimously that there had been a violation

Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable to the applicant's complaint concerning non-entitlement to a Widow's Payment and Widowed Mother's Allowance;   - held

Accordingly, it held that it would not examine the petition for review (cassation). 11.     The case was remitted to the Sofia City Court, which held its only hearing on 21 June 2001.

Therefore no award can be made under this head.

The Government considered the sums claimed to be excessive and unsubstantiated by documentary evidence. 85.

    That being so, the Court considers that the applicant did not sustain any damage which affected his financial position, and accordingly that no sum should be awarded to him under that head

    The Kyiv City Court also ordered the forfeiture of the applicant's bail, a sum of UAH   500,000 [3] . In particular, it held: “... when questioned as an accused Mr O.I.