on 19 October 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 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

, by six votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention ; - held, unanimously, with respect to the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant that the present judgment

damage sustained by the applicant;   -   held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 7 500

that it was not necessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; - held that it was not necessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 14

complaints concerning the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand and of the criminal proceeding brought against him; Whereas in its judgment of 31 July 2001 the Court unanimously: - held

brought, after having been arrested, before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power;   Whereas in its judgment of 2 July 2002 the Court unanimously:   -   held

that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraph   3, of the Convention;   -   held that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraph   4, of the Convention

1994, the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;     Whereas, at the 514th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention and that no separate issue arose under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);     Whereas, at the 542nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

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

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 7 April 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 7 April 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 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

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

just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 26 May 1995;     Whereas, at the 542nd meeting of the Deputies held