There were case conferences held by the local authority on 13 May 1986, 26 June 1986 and 8 October 1986.

The court held that the investigations had been improperly conducted throughout the proceedings.

Five further hearings were held prior to 7   December 1993. 8.     On 13 September 1994 the next hearing was held. In 1994 the District Court held in total four hearings. 9.

The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), had been violated;        - held unanimously that the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) was not ready for decision;  

, by seven votes to two, that there had been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;   – held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   – held

, that there had been a violation of Article 10, of the Convention;   -   held, that there had been no violation of Article 13, of the Convention;   - held, that there had been no violation

that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; -   held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered

that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention; - held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 10; - held

unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the case under Articles 5, 8 and 13 (art. 5, art. 8, art. 13);        -     held by four votes to three that the

that there had been a violation of Article 6,      paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;   -     held that it was not necessary to examine the case  &

Accordingly, an award under this head is appropriate and the Court is of the opinion that the amount proposed by the Government is fully adequate.

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

Meetings between counsel and the applicant, assisted by an interpreter, were held on 6   June,   7   July, 13 August and 19 September 2008.

More specifically, the applicant companies had held licences for the provision of public transport services on a group of seven routes for the period 2005-2008.

of the value of the summer houses she intended to buy.

The prosecutor held that A.P. had to move the cattle and to continue the tracking.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complained that those proceedings were not held sufficiently in public.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive head;   3.