The applicant was suffering from constant head aches and dizzy spells in the summer because of the overcrowded conditions, the high temperatures and the lack of ventilation and air in the room.

that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention was applicable in this case;   – held that there had been a violation of that Article as regards access to a court;   – held that it was not necessary

In addition, they were ordered to pay Mrs R.M. a specified sum for non-pecuniary damage. An appeal by the applicants was dismissed.

  The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3, Article 5 § 4 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 25,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage.

The District Court also held that pending their removal the applicants had to be detained in the temporary detention centre for aliens.

It held that the first ‑ instance decision had been adequately reasoned.

  The Court held by six votes to one: that there would be a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the applicants were

Prior to 1   May   1993 the court held six hearings and obtained five expert opinions.

On 10 March 2000 the District Court held a hearing and heard evidence from the applicant and his co-accused.

1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention had been violated in that the Strasbourg Administrative Court did not hear the applicant's case within a "reasonable time";   - held, by five votes to two, that there

   Whereas in its judgment of 23 November 1993 the Court unanimously:        - dismissed the government's preliminary objections;        - held

that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 21 May 1990;        Whereas in its judgment of 26 June 1991 the Court unanimously:   -     held

    On 18 November 1994 the District Court held a hearing, which lasted 30 minutes.

  In the case of Sinan Eren the Court held unanimously: that there had been no violation of Article 3 .

    On 8 February 1991 the Regional Court held an oral hearing. 15.

It further held that the trial court could not be held responsible for delays caused by the absence of witnesses.

The first applicant claimed EUR 38,410.38 under this head.

DPU-420-1114/SU/2014). 33.

According to the applicant, at some point during the proceedings the head of the Agency demanded that she pay back USD 180,000, otherwise she could be held criminally liable for appropriation of State