On 16 September 2014 the Zemgale Regional Court ( Zemgales apgabaltiesa ) held a hearing.

    The court held as follows: “...

made by the Prosecutor and the Chairman of the Seimas (Parliament) had breached his right to presumption of innocence;   Whereas in its judgment of 26 March 2002 the Court unanimously:   - held

been excessive and that he had been deprived of the right to challenge before a judge the lawfulness of his detention;   Whereas in its judgment of 21 March 2002 the Court, unanimously:   - held

that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Erzurum State Security Court;   -   held that it was

-1);   - held by five votes to two that the detention of the applicant constituted a breach of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) from 14 May 1965 to 14 January 1966;   - held by four votes to three that

on 11 June 1993, 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, of the Convention,

, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention; - held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention; - held, unanimously

that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;   - held that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention insofar as witnesses S. and

that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1;   -   held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;   -   held

, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;   -   held, unanimously, that

by eight votes to one that there had been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8);        - held unanimously that it was not necessary also to examine the case under Article 13 (art. 13

by eight votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 11 (art. 11);        - held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the case under Articles 9 (art. 9

that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   -   held that there had not been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article

that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention;   -   held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention;   -   held that

It held that the sum awarded by the District Court would inevitably be paid to the applicant, thus it would not be too burdensome for him to pay the court fee.

They also held the Vinkovci Medical Centre responsible for medical negligence in the treatment of Ivan’s injuries. 13.

A hearing was held on 29 September 1999.

She had handed the cash over to the deputy head. 11.