On 15   June   1986 the applicant had a traffic accident with a head-on collision.

The following hearing was held on 6 February 2003.

His head and neck are supported with a rolled towel to prevent whiplash. [3.] The facial hold is used to hold the detainee’s head immobile.

the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 in respect of its substantive or procedural head (for further details see Mižigárová v.

HELDER 2 [Adresse 8] [Localité 9] S.C.I.

The children's head-teacher, Mrs Armstrong, expressed concern in May 1989 and requested a case conference.

On 24 January 2011 the applicant again asked the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice and head of Pula Prison to be transferred to Zadar Prison.

       - held that there had not been a violation of Article 3 (art. 3);        - held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) with respect

in respect of the normal care orders in regard to either child;   -   held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention by reason of the failure to take proper

  1; -   held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to consider the case under Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention; - held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under

In its judgment the Supreme Court held, inter alia : “… A detailed examination of the facts held to have been proved shows that there is no doubt that the appellants were placed in detention [ detención

    The journalists alleged that in the summer of 2002 W.D., the Head of the Private Office of the Minister of Health ( Szef Gabinetu Politycznego Ministra Zdrowia ) had demanded a bribe from

    At a hearing held on 21 December 2006 the investigation judge heard evidence from nine witnesses and held an identification parade.

The Court thus awards the applicant that sum under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE 17.

The commissioner held public hearings for examining witnesses.

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 6 April 1990;        Whereas in its judgment of 26 April 1991, the Court:   -     held

In that connection, the court held as follows: “...

, by six votes to one, that the applicant could claim to be a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention;   - held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6

that, in the same event, there would be no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.c (art. 6-3-c), of the Convention;   - held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Article 6,