The Court saw no reason to question the Helsinki District Court’s finding that such a drastic measure would not have been in the child’s best interests.

The detention had lasted a total of seven days, which had not been excessive in the circumstances. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).

No violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

unauthorised entry, and was not compatible with Article 5 § 1   (f): there was no risk of the applicant absconding, and indeed Oakington was only used to detain those who were not at risk of absconding

Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).

The court did not examine the request for an interim order. The first applicant did not raise the issue.

It was not my intention to pass any judgment on the KPD’s programme and I cannot do so now. I am not a member of the KPD.

Article 149 "... a person who has been held in detention on remand during proceedings which have been terminated in so far as he is concerned by a finding that he has no case to answer (non-lieu) that

However, the rights bestowed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are not absolute.

There is no indication in the case file that the meditation centre has a negative influence on children or that it propagates certain intolerable views; nor is there any evidence that the [applicant's]

In sum, there was no evidence in the applicant’s case that the attack on him had been racially motivated. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

In the circumstances of this case, the Court does not consider that the reasons which have been given why it should refrain from pronouncing on the non-contested allegations of violation of Article 3 (

    The Court notes that the impugned statement did not amount to personal insult (see, by contrast, W.R. v. Austria , no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997, and Mahler v.

In sum, the domestic authorities had given relevant and sufficient reasons for their decision and had not gone beyond their margin of appreciation. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).

His case did not therefore raise a matter of public interest such as warranted a public hearing. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1). II.

No violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine P7-2;Remainder inadmissible

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1

As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the fact that political parties were not permitted to receive funds from foreign parties was not in itself incompatible with Article