Second limb: applicants had not brought action to obtain declaration of entitlement or to recover compensation they claimed was due to them - held that any proceedings brought after judgment of full court

that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   – held that the present judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage suffered

concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings and the unfairness of the first set of proceedings;   Whereas in its judgment of 9 March 2004 the Court unanimously:   -   held

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

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

on 11 September 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

on 15 October 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

to three, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 510th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

1994 the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;     Whereas, at the 522nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

to two, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 485th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

to one, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 483rd 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

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

just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 13 April 1995;     Whereas, at the 539th meeting of the Deputies held

on 1-2 March 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, of the Convention,

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