The Court of Appeal held that the State Immunity Act 1978 meant that he could not pursue a claim against the Government of Kuwait.

It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.

Without saying a word, he shot Mr T. in the head.

The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 9.

He did not seek medical help immediately upon his return, but was examined by a doctor in December 2003 and August 2004.

On 4 December 1995 the court held a hearing and requested the respondent to submit some documents. On 31 January and 13 March 1996 the court held hearings.

There was no indication that the applicant could be held accountable for those delays.

Suite à un arrêté de la mairie d'[Localité 7] en date du 24 avril 2023, Mme [L] a quitté le logement. L'expert judiciaire a remis son rapport le 4 mai 2023.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Once they had the applicant in the car, they put a black bag on his head.

Italy - 31524/96 Judgment 30.10.2003 [Section II] Article 41 Just satisfaction Appointment of expert to assess pecuniary loss In a judgment of 30 May 2000, the Court held that there had been a violation

When the tax authorities refused, the applicant company brought proceedings in Athens Administrative Court to obtain that sum plus interest.

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

brought before the Court by the Commission and the Government of the United Kingdom on 28 May 1996 and 27 August 1996 respectively;   Whereas in its judgment of 25 June 1997 the Court: -   held

Turkey (application no. 31850/96)   Violation Article 5 § 3 The applicants, all ten of whom are Turkish nationals, complained about the length of time (between five and 11 days) they were held in

[Š . ] nekomentuoja, paaiškindamas, kad visi jo pokalbiai su V.[Š.] buvo dėl akių, kadangi kažką kalbėti su V.

The first applicant was held in pre-trial detention in Prison no. 13. The second and the third applicants were held in the same detention facility to serve their sentences.

The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.

Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant a certain sum for costs and expenses.   1.