Where restitution proved impossible, Italy should ensure payment of a sum corresponding to the value of restitution in kind.

The court awarded them an aggregate sum of 2,450   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage only and made an award in respect of procedural costs.

The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in each of these cases.

The applicant appealed but on 12   August 2008 the Head of the Police upheld his own decision. On 14   August 2008 the Head of the Police refused to reopen the proceedings.

At the material time the applicant held the post of Head of Dniprodzerzhinsk Police. A.

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

The next day, 19 September 1994, Struma ran an article titled “Camp head counsellor mistreats twenty ‑ seven children”.

It further held that there had been no violation of Article   14.

    On 6   September and 23   October   1995 the trial court held inspections of the site. 10.

    On 31 January 1994 the trial court held a hearing at which it gave a default judgment ( wyrok zaoczny ).

The Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 29 June and 14 November 1995.

The first applicant suffers from serious recurrent health problems caused by tuberculosis.

Further hearings were held on 30 March, 23 April, 5 May, 11 May, 23   June, 14 July and 28 July 1999. 14.

    On 28 June 1994 the County Administrative Court held an oral hearing in the case.

; held that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention taken either alone or in conjunction with Article 14;   -   held that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints

The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken together with Article 14.

No further record indicated where he was held in custody after that event. Two extended custody periods of fifteen days were granted by the public prosecutor.

    In the resumed proceedings, the Labour Court held hearings on 5   May, 30 June and 24 November 1998.

It follows from the materials presented that [the applicant] was held liable for criminal offences, including a particularly serious offence; and that in 2004 [he] was held administratively liable.