on 12 October 1990 and by the Government of the United Kingdom on 23 November 1990;        Whereas in its judgment of 26 November 1991 the Court:   -     held

held that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the applicant's   complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);   - held that Sweden was to pay the applicant 10 000 Swedish crowns for

that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   -   held that no separate issue arose under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   - held that the

  Whereas in its judgment of 16 April 2002 the Court unanimously:   -   held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;   - held that it was not necessary to examine

held that it was not necessary to examine the case under Articles 13, 17 and 18 (art. 13, art. 17, art. 18) of the Convention;   - held that Sweden was to pay the applicant, for costs and expenses

damage; - held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months 20 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses; - held that simple interest at an annual rate of 6.65% should

At the hearing held on 19 December 2001 the Bjelovar Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Bjelovaru ) heard evidence from D.P., the first applicant and several other witnesses.

Taking into account the sum of stolen money in the amount of 1,301,052,630 roubles, the proposed sum of the bail in the amount of 5,000,000   roubles does not correspond to the requirement of reasonableness

    On 6 December 2000 St. met with the applicant and asked him “to help collect a debt” from a company in Moscow.

Radoslav Brđanin , IT-99-36-T, 1   September 2004, § 275, the ICTY held: “275.

It awarded him the further sum of EUR 1,200 for non-pecuniary damage under that head. 22.     On 4 July 2008, S.K. appealed on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 23.

    On 8 May 2008 the Head of the SCD of the Prosecutor General’s Office wrote a letter to the Head of the Anti-terrorism Centre of the MNS requesting that the applicant’s freedom to leave the

   to Healy Holdings Ltd and Mr Healy jointly the sum of      1,2 million Irish pounds for pecuniary damage, the sum of      42 655,11 Irish pounds for

After satisfying his needs, Cârstea remembered that in fact he could not help his cousin, and advised her to sell some jewellery in order to raise money for a doctor.

that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention applied in the instant case;   - held that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), had been violated;   - held that it was not necessary

there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1),   of the Convention;   - held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);   - held that there

, by five votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+8);        - held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to rule on

The next hearing was held on 3 June 1997. Hearings to be held on 16   September and 18 November 1997 were adjourned. In 1998 hearings were held on 13 January, 17 March and 26 May.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.