[Sul.] had seen a wound on [the applicant’s] head and red spots on his chest. ... he further submitted that he had not witnessed how [the applicant] had been beaten; he had seen [the applicant] only afterwards

On 15 July 2004 and 30 November 2004 the court held hearings during which the remainder of the witnesses were heard.

    On 28 February 2018 the Rijeka County Court held a hearing closed to the public at the premises of the Rab Hospital, in the presence of the applicant, his lawyer, the Rab Hospital’s Head

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.

The Sofia City Court held a public hearing on 9 January 2002 and ordered the applicant's release on bail.

    The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no.

, unanimously, that the non-enforcement of the applicant's right of access from 10 May 1990 until 21 October 1993 constituted a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;   – held, by six votes to

In sum, even though T. did not have the majority of the votes, he nonetheless managed to conclude the contract ...” ...

by eight votes to one that there had been a      violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;   -     held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine

on 10 November 1992, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of

    The Court accordingly assesses damage under the first head (relating to ticket sales) at GRD 12,721,451, and under the second head (relating to advertising) at GRD 3,187,207, a total of GRD

It remains to be considered whether the State should be held responsible under Article 3 for these injuries. 20.

He was also the head of the Department of Viticulture and Oenology. 14.

The applicant also alleged that, in the police officers’ attempt to restrain him, G.G. hit him on the head with the handcuffs.

that article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention applied in this case and had been breached; – held that this judgment in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged prejudice; – held

by five votes to two that there had been a violation of   Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;   - held by six votes to one that Sweden was to pay to Mrs Ingegard Skärby, &#

report to the Committee of Ministers;        Whereas the Commission referred the case to the Court on 11 December 1992 and whereas in its judgment of 22 September 1993, the Court held

was to pay the applicant, within three months, 1   000   000 Portuguese Escudos in respect of pecuniary damage; - held, unanimously, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the

, by seven votes to two, that there had been a      breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;   -     held, unanimously, that there had been no breach of &