She had denied that she needed help and had refused all treatment.

Each of these heads of claim will be examined separately. II. REFORM OF THE LAW 14.

to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   - held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention; &

, unanimously, that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention applied in the present case;   – held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in that

that there had been a violation of paragraph 3.c      of Article 6 (art. 6-3-c);   -     held that it was not necessary to examine the case    &#

by the Commission on 8 March 1991 and by the Government of Belgium on 6 May 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 22 April 1992 the Court:        - held

The applicant’s counsel requested that a supplementary interview be held with the friend’s father. This interview was held on 29 February 2008.

Therefore, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c). Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   7.

  The Court held unanimously that: there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The Court held unanimously that there: had been a violation of Article   2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Cavit Özalp’s death; had been a violation of

    The Commission referred [Note1] the case to the Court on 11   September 1999 and a hearing was held on 16 May 2000.

Norway, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The Commission referred [Note1] the case to the Court on 11   September 1999 and a hearing was held on 16 May 2000.

    The conditions of the applicant’s detention During the first period of the applicant’s detention in Łódź Remand Centre he was held in six different cells.

    On 5 March 2015 the applicant filed his pleadings and requested that a hearing be held in his case.

However, as the Court has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see İçyer v.

Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3.

Thus, the Court awards the applicants EUR 1,000 under this head. 41.

She furthermore claimed EUR 3,569.14 based on the assumption that if the Administrative Court had held an oral hearing it would have quashed the LMS's decision and awarded her that sum. 30.