, Mr Ali Tatlı (“the applicant”), on 23 May 2019; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and to declare the

32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;  

      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.

Suède (n° 2) - 18928/91 Arrêt 23.2.1994 Article 6 Article 6-1 Procès public Procès oral Refus de la Cour suprême administrative de tenir audience   : violation [Ce sommaire est tiré du recueil officiel

Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. II.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 1 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION 20.

RiiS (No. 2) against Norway     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

They raise an issue of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Pélissier and Sassi v.

France - 16839/90 Arrêt 23.4.1996 Article 6 Procédure pénale Article 6-1 Tribunal impartial Refus de la cour d'assises du Rhône de donner acte à un accusé français d'origine algérienne de propos racistes

Szegi, a lawyer practising in Budapest; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”).

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of the lack of access to a court with regard to decisions by the CJP.

Les griefs que les requérants tiraient de l’article   6 § 1 de la Convention (inexécution ou exécution tardive de décisions de justice internes) ont été communiqués au gouvernement italien («  

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §   1 OF THE CONVENTION 25.

Invoquant l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention, les requérants se plaignaient de la durée de la procédure qu’ils avaient engagée devant les juridictions civiles.

Le Comité des ministres a considéré que les mesures prises par la Lituanie étaient suffisantes pour garantir l'exécution de l'arrêt. La résolution a clos la supervision de l'exécution de l'arrêt, marq

32, paragraphe 1 (art. 32-1), de la Convention s'est écoulé sans que l'affaire ait été déférée à la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme en application de l'article 48 (art. 48) de la Convention;