xa0;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 9 September 1994;     Whereas in its judgment of 23 October 1995 the Court unanimously:     - held

xa0;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 9 September 1994;     Whereas in its judgment of 23 October 1995 the Court unanimously:     - held

that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the applicant's continued detention on 4 August 1989;   – held that there had been a violation of Article

that it had jurisdiction to consider the Government of Spain's preliminary objection, but dismissed it;        - held that there had been a violation of Article 10 (art. 10);

;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Government of Greece on 1 June 1994;     Whereas in its judgment of 13 July 1995 the Court unanimously:     - held

xa0;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 9 September 1994;     Whereas in its judgment of 23 October 1995 the Court unanimously:     - held

xa0;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 9 September 1994;     Whereas in its judgment of 23 October 1995 the Court unanimously:     - held

In such a case, the newspaper cannot be held liable.

    On 8   March 1994 the Regional Court held another hearing. 20.

As a consequence, the court found that the applicant had no substantive complaint under this head. 20.

He had been held for twenty-five days and severely tortured.

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

5-2, art. 5-3);         - held that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 6, paragraph 3.b (art. 6-3-b);         - held that

been victim of discriminatory treatment in this respect and that there had been a breach of his right to a fair hearing;   Whereas in its judgment of 11 October 2001 the Court:   -   held

that there had been no violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention; - held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in relation to the lack of an oral hearing

the lack of an effective remedy to assert their rights and the applicants’ complaint concerning the excessive length of the same proceedings; Whereas in its judgment of 7 November 2000 the Court: - held

damage; - held, by eight votes to one, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 60   000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that

that it was not necessary to assess whether here had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   -   held that the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three

that there had been violations of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   - held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention (Kawka case);   -   held