33/02 will pay to the Admiralty Marshal in connection with the proposal of [the lawyer] the sums which are needed and which will include apart from the ticket a sum in the order of USD 50-100 for

The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8. The Court also held, unanimously, that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.

From the hospital it leaked that the head injuries were due to nausea caused by high blood pressure, which had caused the Mandarin’s head to hit the wall and the floor.

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that in the absence of psychiatric care in the institution in which he was held, his preventive detention was in breach of Articles 3 and 5 § 1 of the

On 15 February 2000 the court held a hearing. On 20 April 2000 it ordered a supplementary expert opinion. 21. On 26 September and 14 November 2000 the court held hearings.

The applicant further contended under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention that in dismissing his objection against the decision to detain him, the court had not held a hearing.

that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;   - held that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention was applicable in the present case;   - held that

;   - held unanimously that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) was applicable in the present case;   - held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 13,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this

It accordingly held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 10 of the Convention.

It held that some of the statements in question were covered by the freedom to express criticism and had not overstepped the relevant limits.

  The applicant has been awarded, on an ex gratia basis, the global sum of 55,000 French francs (FRF) for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses.

The article related, inter alia , to K.S., who was at that time the head of Die Freiheitlichen in Kärnten (FPK), a regional political party. The article attracted more than 1,600 user comments.

pecuniary damage; - held, that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months 100   000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage; - held that the respondent State was to

The convicts were allowed to take shower once a week for fifteen minutes, with ten shower heads for up to 40 persons.

that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;   - held that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention was applicable in the present case;   - held that

xa0;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 18 January 1993;     Whereas in its judgment of 22 February 1994 the Court unanimously:     - held

Pursuant to that decision, the applicant received a sum for the months of November and December 1985.