had been no violation of Article   5, paragraph   2, of the Convention; unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraph   3, of the Convention because

The Government claims the factory was never opened because the applicant company and Company X failed to correct the defects found by the fire brigade.

acknowledgment that his detention had been unlawful and an implicit admission of a violation of Article 5 §   1   (c) of the Convention, he had nevertheless not received any compensation because

The Court of Appeal also dismissed the action lodged by the second applicant on procedural grounds, namely because she had failed to lodge a preliminary complaint with the Municipal Council as required

The Ministry argued that the refusal had been lawful because the grant agreement in question had expired, as its implementation had been intended within the period from 15 September 2014 to 15 September

COMPLAINTS The applicant company complains under Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the proceedings were not fair because it had not been summoned to appear before the Supreme Court

With regard to the first association, the prohibition was because its objectives had not been fixed in compliance with the relevant law as well as because its name suggested the existence of persecution

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law alleging, inter alia , that she had not had a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal because the president of the panel of the Split

In his claim against his employer (the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management), the applicant in application no. 13115/22 argued that, because of his membership in a certain political party

The national authorities had referred to the relevant legal provision in justifying their decisions but had refused to provide the applicants with certain editions of a daily newspaper not because the

Although criminal proceedings had been brought against her three times in seven years, they had never resulted in any sanction, either because the act in question was not an offence under domestic legislation

In particular, were the principle of equality of arms and the requirement of adversarial procedure violated because the civil courts refused, on allegedly spurious grounds, to assess the specialist opinion

That court considered the refusal to hand over the publications to the applicants justified not because of the content of the publications, but because of the manner of their reception at the respective

paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, namely that the administrative courts had not heard its case within a reasonable time, and that the Conseil d'Etat had not constituted an impartial tribunal, because

The Constitutional Court revoked the aforementioned provision because it failed to replace the parents’ obligation with that of the State, leaving disabled adults in a precarious situation without permanent

The time lapse between the arrest and search raised legitimate concerns about possible “planting” of evidence, because the applicant was completely under the police’s control during that time.

The applicants were convicted solely because of their failure to comply with the relevant legislation, which applied to everyone.

Her claim was eventually dismissed as time-barred because the civil courts found that the five-year statutory limitation period for seeking compensation had elapsed.

In 2004 he was transferred to a new post which required him to carry out repair work at other sites, a task ill-suited to someone with his disability because most of the institutions or firms he was sent

Conduct of relevant authorities: no fewer than thirteen adjournments, sometimes because judge had been transferred, sometimes ordered by court of its own motion or with no reasons given and sometimes because