accordance with Protocol No. 9 (P9) but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 17 may 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

  Applicable criteria Reasonableness of length of proceedings: to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, which in this instance called for overall assessment.

accordance with Protocol No. 9 (P9) but considering that the screening panel of the Court decided on 29 January 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court, the Committee of Ministers is now called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 (P9) but considering that the screening panel of the Court decided on 29 January 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court, the Committee of Ministers is now called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 (P9) but considering that the screening panel of the Court decided on 29 January 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court, the Committee of Ministers is now called

Law : In reality, the Constitutional Court appeared to have failed to obtain a majority on any of the issues it had been called upon to decide and had therefore declined to take a decision in the applicant

In 2004 France passed a decree providing for financial assistance to orphans of persons who had died while being deported or been executed for acts of resistance (called “victims of acts of barbarity”)

accordance with Protocol No. 9 (P9) but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 31 July 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now called

  Relevant criteria Reasonableness of length of proceedings: to be assessed in light of particular circumstances of case, which in this instance called for an overall assessment.

accordance with Protocol No. 9 (P9) but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 31 July 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now called

Ministers, that the sentence served against the applicant would not be executed and that no mention of this sentence would appear in the applicant's judicial record, decides that no further action is called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 (P9) but considering that the screening panel of the Court decided on 12 December 1995 that this case would not be considered by the Court, the Committee of Ministers is now called

2014 communicated on 9 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a public manager, was dismissed by the Ministry of Justice according to Article 19 of Legislative Decree no. 165/2001 (so-called

His claim for damages was dismissed at all levels of jurisdiction on the ground that the domestic authorities had not acted with so ‑ called “qualified unlawfulness”.

Reasonableness of the length of proceedings: to be assessed with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in the cases under review called

The judge then called all the members of the jury back in court and reminded them of the oath they had taken before sitting as the jury.

This so-called “accompanying family” procedure, provided for by a ministerial circular of 2006 and intended for highly qualified workers, is to be distinguished from the traditional “family reunification

Government of Portugal pay to the applicant company the token sum of one escudo for material and non-pecuniary damage;        Decides, therefore, that no further action is called