The court held that there was no evidence that such a transfer would be incompatible with the applicant’s state of health. 64.

With regard to the applicant’s case, the court held that the conditions in which he had been held had “approached the threshold of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention”.

The applicant states that he was held in different cells, which he describes as follows: from 8 December to 14 December 2013 he was held in an overcrowded cell of 12 sq m (with seven other inmates): the

        On 16 May 1990 T.K., Head of the District Surveying Office of Vaasa, took over the Expert's duties.

In May 1945 nearly all surviving Yugoslav Germans were held in them and had to perform forced labour.

The same had also been held by the European Court of Human Rights.

In September 2007 the applicant and his family had left for Syria with the help of a smuggler.

A certain B. proposed to help them in finding a flat. 8.

by eight votes to one that, for want of fair trial, there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);        - held by eight votes to one that it was unnecessary

He requested revision of the judgment as regards the non-allocation of sums under Article 41 of the Convention. 4.

    On 18 June 2004 the head of Detention Facility no.

    Mr Garcea was held in Jilava and Rahova prisons and prison hospitals.

This creature [Ms Milashina] will be held responsible according to law. As for retribution, [they will undoubtedly suffer] the reprisal of the almighty Allah.

Under the head of pecuniary damage, the applicant requested exemption from payment of the fine and claimed a minimum of EUR   140,000.

to one, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 519th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 3 March 1995;     Whereas, at the 542nd meeting of the Deputies held

that it was not necessary to examine the case under   Article 10 (art. 10) or under Article 13 taken in conjunction with   Article 3 (art. 13+3) or Article 8 (art. 13+8);   - held that

with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-1);   - held that the respondent state was to pay to the applicant, for damage, 150 000 Austrian schillings, and, for costs and expenses, the sum resulting

A list obtained in the search was said to suggest that the purpose of the association was to help the families of PKK members actively involved in armed conflict.