case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 8 March 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 27 February 1992 the Court unanimously:        - held

case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 8 March 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 27 February 1992 the Court unanimously:        - held

was brought before the Court by the Commission on 13 April 1992;        Whereas in its judgment of 26 February 1993 the Court unanimously:        - held

was brought before the Court by the Commission on 16 February 1990;        Whereas in its judgment of 19 February 1991 the Court unanimously:        - held

was brought before the Court by the Commission on 19 April 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 27 February 1992 the Court unanimously:        - held

was brought before the Court by the Commission on 19 April 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 27 February 1992 the Court unanimously:        - held

, by seven votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention and of Article 2 of Protocol No.1 as regards the Sophia Efstratiou's suspension from school; - held, unanimously

, by seven votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention and of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the Victoria Valsamis's suspension from school; - held, unanimously

Security Court which convicted him;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 17 March 1998;   Whereas in its judgment of   8 July 1999 the Court: - held

    The court held hearings on 12 February 2004 and 17 June 2004. 18.

The applicant’s role as head of the criminal organisation and the instigator of its activities was also taken into consideration as an aggravating circumstance in his case.

The court described in detail the events of 27 September 1994 and held, as relevant: “... the act was committed negligently ...

applicant, allegedly, hit his head against the ambulance. 56.

In the hearing held on 19 December 1995, the court heard Mr O.B. who stated, inter alia, that he knew the second applicant from school.

The Court therefore held that the sentence imposed on Mr   Kızılyaprak was disproportionate to the aims pursued and therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”.

    At the hearing held on 2   October 2015 the judge read out the applicant’s letter.

They also held that the existence of a lawfully constructed building belonging to the applicant could not be established.

    Hellas Eurotrade Ltd had been established in 1975 and had three shareholders: the applicant who held 40% of the shares and three other individuals that held the remaining shares in equal

Although he was supposed to receive GBP   4,000 in payment for his services he claimed that this sum was not in fact paid to him. 5 .