on 17 September 1992, 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 (art. 32-1), of

on 26 January 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 (art. 32-1), of the

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 (art. 32-1), of the

opinion that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 477th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

on 15 June 1992, 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 (art. 32-1), of the

to one, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 499th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, held

excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the civil courts and the Constitutional Court; Whereas in its judgment of 27 July 2000 the Court unanimously: - held

that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; - held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention; - held that the respondent State

by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; - held unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention; - held by six votes

before administrative courts and secondly to the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions;   Whereas in its judgment of 19 June 2001 the Court unanimously:   -   held

unanimously that there had been no violation of      Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;   -     held by eight votes to one that there had been

on 21 September 1994, 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 (art. 32-1), of

on 19 October 1995, 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 (art. 32-1), of the

on 19 October 1995, 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 (art. 32-1), of the

1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention and that no separate question arose under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);        Whereas, at the 491st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

on 10 November 1992, 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 (art. 32-1), of

the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;     Whereas, at the 542nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

just satisfaction as regards the alleged non-pecuniary damage;         _ held , unanimously, that the respondent State was to pay the applicants, within three months, 25 000 French

to two, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 499th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, held