Holds by ten votes to four that there has been no breach of
Articles 11 and 14 (art. 14+11) taken together.
Holds by ten votes to four that there has been no breach of
Articles 11 and 14 (art. 14+11) taken together.
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention. 
holds by fourteen votes to three that the last-mentioned practice
was not one of torture within the meaning of Article 3 (art. 3);
holds by fourteen votes to three that the last-mentioned practice
was not one of torture within the meaning of Article 3 (art. 3);
holds by fourteen votes to three that the last-mentioned practice
was not one of torture within the meaning of Article 3 (art. 3);
holds by fourteen votes to three that the last-mentioned practice
was not one of torture within the meaning of Article 3 (art. 3);
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, taken alone;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, taken alone;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8); (no consideration of article 14, article 13)
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8); (no consideration of article 14, article 13)
holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a breach of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a breach of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a breach of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a breach of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that there has been breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, taken alone, with respect to
Holds by ten votes to five that there has been breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, taken alone, with respect to
Holds by ten votes to five that there has been breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, taken alone, with respect to
Holds by eleven votes to four that there has also been breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with
Holds by eleven votes to four that there has also been breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with
Holds by eleven votes to four that there has also been breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been breach of
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been breach of
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been breach of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has also been breach of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has also been breach of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has also been breach of
Holds by ten votes to five that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by ten votes to five that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by ten votes to five that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by nine votes to six that there has been no breach of
Holds by nine votes to six that there has been no breach of
Holds by nine votes to six that there has been no breach of
Holds by ten votes to five that there has been breach of
Holds by ten votes to five that there has been breach of
Holds by ten votes to five that there has been breach of
Holds by fifteen votes to five that Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by fifteen votes to five that Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by fifteen votes to five that Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by fifteen votes to five that Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by fifteen votes to five that Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by fifteen votes to five that Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to one that it is also not necessary to
examine the case under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by six votes to one that it is also not necessary to
examine the case under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as regards both applicants;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as regards both applicants;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as regards both applicants;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as regards both applicants;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as regards both applicants;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as regards both applicants;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as regards both applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as regards both applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as regards both applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as regards both applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as regards both applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as regards both applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as regards both applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as regards both applicants;
Holds by six votes to one  that it is not necessary also to examine the case under Article 5 par. 2 (art. 5-2);
Holds by six votes to one  that it is not necessary also to examine the case under Article 5 par. 2 (art. 5-2);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Rejects by ten votes to eight the Government's objection that
domestic remedies have not been exhausted;
Rejects by ten votes to eight the Government's objection that
domestic remedies have not been exhausted;
Rejects by ten votes to eight the Government's objection that
domestic remedies have not been exhausted;
Rejects by ten votes to eight the Government's objection that
domestic remedies have not been exhausted;
Rejects by ten votes to eight the Government's objection that
domestic remedies have not been exhausted;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been, with respect to Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Cosans, breach of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2); as regards
Jeffrey Cosans, breach of the first sentence
Holds by six votes to one that there has been, with respect to Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Cosans, breach of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2); as regards
Jeffrey Cosans, breach of the first sentence
Holds by six votes to one that there has been, with respect to Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Cosans, breach of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2); as regards
Jeffrey Cosans, breach of the first sentence
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there is a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there is a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there is a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there is a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there is a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there is a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there is a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there is a breach of
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that by reason of the failure toexhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of themerits of the case.
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that by reason of the failure toexhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of themerits of the case.
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that by reason of the failure toexhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of themerits of the case.
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that by reason of the failure toexhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of themerits of the case.
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that by reason of the failure toexhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of themerits of the case.
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that by reason of the failure toexhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of themerits of the case.
holds by four votes to three that Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention was applicable thereto;
holds by four votes to three that Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention was applicable thereto;
holds by four votes to three that Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention was applicable thereto;
holds by four votes to three that there has not been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) by reason of the fact that the Board did not
conduct its adjudication in public;
holds by four votes to three that there has not been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) by reason of the fact that the Board did not
conduct its adjudication in public;
holds by four votes to three that there has not been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) by reason of the fact that the Board did not
conduct its adjudication in public;
holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in that the Board did not make public its decision; holds by five votes to two that Mr. Campbell's inability to obtain legal assis
holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in that the Board did not make public its decision; holds by five votes to two that Mr. Campbell's inability to obtain legal assis
holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in that the Board did not make public its decision; holds by five votes to two that Mr. Campbell's inability to obtain legal assis
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been no breach of
Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been no breach of
Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been no breach of
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that Article 6 § 3 (e)
(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that Article 6 § 3 (e)
(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that Article 6 § 3 (e)
(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that Article 6 § 3 (e)
(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that Article 6 § 3 (e)
(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that Article 6 § 3 (e)
(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that Article 6 § 3 (e)
(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that Article 6 § 3 (e)
(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
Holds, by twelve votes to six, that there has been breach of the
said Article (art. 6-3-e);
Holds, by twelve votes to six, that there has been breach of the
said Article (art. 6-3-e);
Holds, by twelve votes to six, that there has been breach of the
said Article (art. 6-3-e);
Holds, by twelve votes to six, that there has been breach of the
said Article (art. 6-3-e);
Holds, by twelve votes to six, that there has been breach of the
said Article (art. 6-3-e);
Holds, by twelve votes to six, that there has been breach of the
said Article (art. 6-3-e);
Holds, by twelve votes to six, that there has been breach of the
said Article (art. 6-3-e);
Holds, by twelve votes to six, that there has been breach of the
said Article (art. 6-3-e);
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by ten votes to seven, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Decides, by four votes to three, to strike the case off the list.
Decides, by four votes to three, to strike the case off the list.
Holds by five votes to two that there is breach of Article 10
(art. 10);
Holds by five votes to two that there is breach of Article 10
(art. 10);
Holds by five votes to two that there is breach of Article 10
(art. 10);
Holds by five votes to two that there is breach of Article 10
(art. 10);
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by thirteen votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable in the present case;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to six that Article 6 § 1 has been violated;
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there has been no violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the 1977 Act
contained no provisions making allowance for developments between 1974
and 1977 in
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that
Sir William Lithgow had no individual access to an independent
tribunal in the deter
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there was a breach of paragraph 4
of the same Article (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there was a breach of paragraph 4
of the same Article (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there was a breach of paragraph 4
of the same Article (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there was a breach of paragraph 4
of the same Article (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there was a breach of paragraph 4
of the same Article (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention did not apply in the present case in so far as it relates to the determination of
Holds by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention did not apply in the present case in so far as it relates to the determination of
Holds by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention did not apply in the present case in so far as it relates to the determination of
Holds by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention did not apply in the present case in so far as it relates to the determination of
Holds by five votes to two that it is not necessary to take into
account Article 6 (art. 6) in so far as it relates to the
determination of civil rights and obligations.
Holds by five votes to two that it is not necessary to take into
account Article 6 (art. 6) in so far as it relates to the
determination of civil rights and obligations.
Holds by five votes to two that it is not necessary to take into
account Article 6 (art. 6) in so far as it relates to the
determination of civil rights and obligations.
Holds by five votes to two that it is not necessary to take into
account Article 6 (art. 6) in so far as it relates to the
determination of civil rights and obligations.
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no breach of
Article 13 (art. 13).
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no breach of
Article 13 (art. 13).
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no breach of
Article 13 (art. 13).
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no breach of
Article 13 (art. 13).
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no breach of
Article 13 (art. 13).
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
        of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3        of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds, by nine votes to eight, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by twelve votes to three that there is no violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been no violation of
Article 5 § 1 (art. 5-1); no breach of paragraph 1 or paragraph 3 (c) of that Article (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c);
Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been no violation of
Article 5 § 1 (art. 5-1); no breach of paragraph 1 or paragraph 3 (c) of that Article (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c);
Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been no violation of
Article 5 § 1 (art. 5-1); no breach of paragraph 1 or paragraph 3 (c) of that Article (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c);
Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been no violation of
Article 5 § 1 (art. 5-1); no breach of paragraph 1 or paragraph 3 (c) of that Article (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c);
Holds, by six votes to one, that Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable
in the present case;
Holds, by six votes to one, that Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable
in the present case;
Holds, by six votes to one, that Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable
in the present case;
Holds, by six votes to one, that Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable
in the present case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that it is not necessary to
decide whether the duration of the subsequent wardship proceedings
gave rise to a further violation of the same Article (art. 6-1);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been a breach of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2)
applies in the instant case;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no other
violation of this Article (art. 6-1), notably as regards the
fairness of the proceedings
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no other
violation of this Article (art. 6-1), notably as regards the
fairness of the proceedings
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no other
violation of this Article (art. 6-1), notably as regards the
fairness of the proceedings
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no other
violation of this Article (art. 6-1), notably as regards the
fairness of the proceedings
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to five that the decision to take the children
into care and its maintenance in force did not give rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Holds by twelve votes to three that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8) on account of the manner in which the said decision
was implemented;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Rejects by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's
preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds by ten votes to six that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
has been violated;
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds, by nine votes to nine, with the casting vote of the President
(Rule 20 § 3 of the Rules of Court), that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by eight votes to six that the applicant can claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by ten votes to eight that there is no violation
of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by fourteen votes to four that there is no
violation of Article 12 (art. 12).
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 (art. 6) as regards the failure to arrange a confrontation
between the party seeking civil damages and Mr Bricmont on three of
the five charges on wh
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 (art. 6) as regards the failure to arrange a confrontation
between the party seeking civil damages and Mr Bricmont on three of
the five charges on wh
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 (art. 6) as regards the failure to arrange a confrontation
between the party seeking civil damages and Mr Bricmont on three of
the five charges on wh
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6 (art. 6) as regards the failure to arrange a confrontation
between the party seeking civil damages and Mr Bricmont on three of
the five charges on wh
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no breach of
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no breach of
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no breach of
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no breach of
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by nine votes to seven that Article 5 (art. 5)
of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Dismisses by fifteen votes to five the objection of non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies as regards the possibility of a "late appeal";
Holds by six votes to three that by reason of the failure to
exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the
merits of the case.
Holds by six votes to three that by reason of the failure to
exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the
merits of the case.
Holds by six votes to three that by reason of the failure to
exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the
merits of the case.
Holds by six votes to three that by reason of the failure to
exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the
merits of the case.
Holds by six votes to three that by reason of the failure to
exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the
merits of the case.
Holds by six votes to three that by reason of the failure to
exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the
merits of the case.
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there is a violation of
paragraph 5 of the same provision (art. 5-5);
Holds by six votes to three that, in those proceedings, there was a
Holds by six votes to three that, in those proceedings, there was a
Holds by six votes to three that, in those proceedings, there was a
Holds by six votes to three that, in those proceedings, there was a
Holds by six votes to three that, in those proceedings, there was a
Holds by six votes to three that, in those proceedings, there was a
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1);
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) in respect of all four applicants;
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by fifteen votes to five that, on the last-mentioned point,
there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards
Lisa Eriksson also;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10).
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10).
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10).
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 10 (art. 10).
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
   of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
   of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
   of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
   of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
   of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
   of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
   of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as
a result of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant the
applicant's request for an oral hearing;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards the proceedings before
the Go?ta Court of Appeal;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards the proceedings before
the Go?ta Court of Appeal;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards the proceedings before
the Go?ta Court of Appeal;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards the proceedings before
the Go?ta Court of Appeal;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards the proceedings before
the Go?ta Court of Appeal;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards the proceedings before
the Go?ta Court of Appeal;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards the proceedings before
the Go?ta Court of Appeal;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to four that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that, in the event of the decision to
      deport Mr Beldjoudi being implemented, there would be a violation
      of Article 8 (art. 8) with respect to both applicants;
Holds by seven votes to two that, in the event of the decision to
      deport Mr Beldjoudi being implemented, there would be a violation
      of Article 8 (art. 8) with respect to both applicants;
Holds by seven votes to two that, in the event of the decision to
      deport Mr Beldjoudi being implemented, there would be a violation
      of Article 8 (art. 8) with respect to both applicants;
Holds by seven votes to two that, in the event of the decision to
      deport Mr Beldjoudi being implemented, there would be a violation
      of Article 8 (art. 8) with respect to both applicants;
Holds by seven votes to two that, in the event of the decision to
      deport Mr Beldjoudi being implemented, there would be a violation
      of Article 8 (art. 8) with respect to both applicants;
Holds by seven votes to two that, in the event of the decision to
      deport Mr Beldjoudi being implemented, there would be a violation
      of Article 8 (art. 8) with respect to both applicants;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 5 § 1 (art. 5-1); has been a breach of Article 5 § 5 (art. 5-5);
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 5 § 1 (art. 5-1); has been a breach of Article 5 § 5 (art. 5-5);
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a breach of
Article 5 § 1 (art. 5-1); has been a breach of Article 5 § 5 (art. 5-5);
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
     Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
     Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
     Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
     Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
     Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
    paragraph 1 of Article 5 (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
    paragraph 1 of Article 5 (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
    paragraph 1 of Article 5 (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
    paragraph 1 of Article 5 (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
    paragraph 1 of Article 5 (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
    paragraph 1 of Article 5 (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
    paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
    paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
    paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
    paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
    paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of
    paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4);
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that, as regards Healy
Holdings and Mr Healy, there has been no violation of the said
Article 1 (P1-1);
Holds by six votes to three that, as regards Healy
Holdings and Mr Healy, there has been no violation of the said
Article 1 (P1-1);
Holds by six votes to three that, as regards Healy
Holdings and Mr Healy, there has been no violation of the said
Article 1 (P1-1);
Holds by six votes to three that, as regards Healy
Holdings and Mr Healy, there has been no violation of the said
Article 1 (P1-1);
Holds by six votes to three that, as regards Healy
Holdings and Mr Healy, there has been no violation of the said
Article 1 (P1-1);
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by twelve votes to eleven that there has not been a
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14
violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14
violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14
violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14
violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by eighteen votes to six that there has been a
         violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the
         proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional
         Court;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 13 (art. 13) with regard to Roger Andersson;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 13 (art. 13) with regard to Roger Andersson;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 13 (art. 13) with regard to Roger Andersson;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 13 (art. 13) with regard to Roger Andersson;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 13 (art. 13) with regard to Roger Andersson;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 (art. 6);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 (art. 6);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 (art. 6);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 (art. 6);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 (art. 6);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 (art. 6);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 3 (art. 3);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 3 (art. 3);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 3 (art. 3);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 3 (art. 3);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 3 (art. 3);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 3 (art. 3);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
of Article 13 (art. 13).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that it has jurisdiction
to examine the Government's preliminary objections;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by five votes to four that the request for revision is
        admissible and refers the request to the Chamber which gave
        the original judgment.
Holds by five votes to four that the request for revision is
        admissible and refers the request to the Chamber which gave
        the original judgment.
Holds by five votes to four that the request for revision is
        admissible and refers the request to the Chamber which gave
        the original judgment.
Holds by five votes to four that the request for revision is
        admissible and refers the request to the Chamber which gave
        the original judgment.
Holds by five votes to four that the request for revision is
        admissible and refers the request to the Chamber which gave
        the original judgment.
Holds by five votes to four that the request for revision is
        admissible and refers the request to the Chamber which gave
        the original judgment.
Holds by five votes to four that the request for revision is
        admissible and refers the request to the Chamber which gave
        the original judgment.
Holds by five votes to four that the request for revision is
        admissible and refers the request to the Chamber which gave
        the original judgment.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 6 (art. 6).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the
        prohibition on removal;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the
        prohibition on removal;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the
        prohibition on removal;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the
        prohibition on removal;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the
        prohibition on removal;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the
        prohibition on removal;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the
        prohibition on removal;
Holds by seven votes to two that no separate issue arises
        under Article 53 (art. 53);
Holds by seven votes to two that no separate issue arises
        under Article 53 (art. 53);
Holds by seven votes to two that no separate issue arises
        under Article 53 (art. 53);
Holds by seven votes to two that no separate issue arises
        under Article 53 (art. 53);
Holds by seven votes to two that no separate issue arises
        under Article 53 (art. 53);
Holds by seven votes to two that no separate issue arises
        under Article 53 (art. 53);
Holds by seven votes to two that no separate issue arises
        under Article 53 (art. 53);
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with
        Article 4 para. 3 (d) (art. 14+4-3-d);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with
        Article 4 para. 3 (d) (art. 14+4-3-d);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with
        Article 4 para. 3 (d) (art. 14+4-3-d);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with
        Article 4 para. 3 (d) (art. 14+4-3-d);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with
        Article 4 para. 3 (d) (art. 14+4-3-d);
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by fourteen votes to ten that there was no violation of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention during the period from
11 July 1986 to 30 July 1987;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
         of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
         of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
         of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
         of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
         of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
         of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
         of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c).
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
       Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
       Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
       Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
       Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
       Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
       Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
       Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to eight the Government's
       plea that Mrs X and Ms Geraghty cannot claim to be
       victims of a violation of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 9 (art. 9);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 9 (art. 9);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 9 (art. 9);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
        Article 9 (art. 9);
Holds, by fourteen votes to four, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds, by fourteen votes to four, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds, by fourteen votes to four, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds, by fourteen votes to four, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds, by fourteen votes to four, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds, by fourteen votes to four, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds, by fourteen votes to four, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant; Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5-) of the Convention in  r
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant; Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5-) of the Convention in  r
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant; Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5-) of the Convention in  r
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant; Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5-) of the Convention in  r
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant; Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5-) of the Convention in  r
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant; Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5-) of the Convention in  r
Holds, by thirteen votes to five, that there has been no
        breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant; Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5-) of the Convention in  r
Holds, by fifteen votes to three, that there has been no
        breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of
        any of the applicants;
Holds, by fifteen votes to three, that there has been no
        breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of
        any of the applicants;
Holds, by fifteen votes to three, that there has been no
        breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of
        any of the applicants;
Holds, by fifteen votes to three, that there has been no
        breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of
        any of the applicants;
Holds, by fifteen votes to three, that there has been no
        breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of
        any of the applicants;
Holds, by fifteen votes to three, that there has been no
        breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of
        any of the applicants;
Holds, by fifteen votes to three, that there has been no
        breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of
        any of the applicants;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
       violation of Article 11 (art. 11).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
       violation of Article 11 (art. 11).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
       violation of Article 11 (art. 11).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
       violation of Article 11 (art. 11).
No violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention
No violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention
No violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention
No violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention
No violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a
       violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by twenty-two votes to four that the United Kingdom's
        derogation satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15)
        and that therefore the applicants cannot validly complain of
        a violation
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach
       of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach
       of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach
       of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach
       of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach
       of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach
       of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach
       of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of
        Article 10 (art. 10).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of
        Article 10 (art. 10).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of
        Article 10 (art. 10).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of
        Article 10 (art. 10).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Dismisses by eleven votes to six the preliminary objection
        ratione temporis; that the denial of access to the
        applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof is imputable to Turkey; that the
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no
      violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no
      violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no
      violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no
      violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10)
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10)
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10)
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10)
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by eleven votes to eight that Article 11 (art. 11) of the
        Convention was applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to eight that Article 11 (art. 11) of the
        Convention was applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to eight that Article 11 (art. 11) of the
        Convention was applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to eight that Article 11 (art. 11) of the
        Convention was applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to eight that Article 11 (art. 11) of the
        Convention was applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to eight that Article 11 (art. 11) of the
        Convention was applicable in the present case;
Holds by eleven votes to eight that Article 11 (art. 11) of the
        Convention was applicable in the present case;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been no violation
        of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been no violation
        of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been no violation
        of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been no violation
        of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been no violation
        of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been no violation
        of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been no violation
        of Article 11 (art. 11);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been no violation
     of Article 25 § 1 (art. 25-1) in fine.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the
        measure taken in French Polynesia;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the
        measure taken in French Polynesia;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the
        measure taken in French Polynesia;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the
        measure taken in French Polynesia;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the
        measure taken in French Polynesia;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation
        of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in that the applicant's civil
        rights and obligations were not "determined" by a "tribunal"
        within the
Dismisses by six votes to one the remainder of the Government's preliminary objections; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
        Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in
        respect of the first applicant;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government's preliminary
        objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in
        respect of the complaint under Article 6 (art. 6) of the
        Convention;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government's preliminary
        objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in
        respect of the complaint under Article 6 (art. 6) of the
        Convention;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government's preliminary
        objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in
        respect of the complaint under Article 6 (art. 6) of the
        Convention;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government's preliminary
        objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in
        respect of the complaint under Article 6 (art. 6) of the
        Convention;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government's preliminary
        objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in
        respect of the complaint under Article 6 (art. 6) of the
        Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10).
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
      Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of
        the compensation proceedings instituted on 8 January 1982.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of
        the compensation proceedings instituted on 8 January 1982.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of
        the compensation proceedings instituted on 8 January 1982.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of
        the compensation proceedings instituted on 8 January 1982.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of
        the compensation proceedings instituted on 8 January 1982.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention (art. 5-4).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention (art. 5-4).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention (art. 5-4).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation
        of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention (art. 5-4).
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) is applicable in the case and has been
      breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) is applicable in the case and has been
      breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) is applicable in the case and has been
      breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) is applicable in the case and has been
      breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) is applicable in the case and has been
      breached;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); no violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); no violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); no violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); no violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); no violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1); no violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
        Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
        Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
        Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to five that there has been no
         violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1,
         art. 6-2) of the Convention arising out of the drawing
         of adverse inferences on account
Holds by fourteen votes to five that there has been no
         violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1,
         art. 6-2) of the Convention arising out of the drawing
         of adverse inferences on account
Holds by fourteen votes to five that there has been no
         violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1,
         art. 6-2) of the Convention arising out of the drawing
         of adverse inferences on account
Holds by fourteen votes to five that there has been no
         violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1,
         art. 6-2) of the Convention arising out of the drawing
         of adverse inferences on account
Holds by fourteen votes to five that there has been no
         violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1,
         art. 6-2) of the Convention arising out of the drawing
         of adverse inferences on account
Holds by fourteen votes to five that there has been no
         violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1,
         art. 6-2) of the Convention arising out of the drawing
         of adverse inferences on account
Holds by fourteen votes to five that there has been no
         violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1,
         art. 6-2) of the Convention arising out of the drawing
         of adverse inferences on account
Holds by fourteen votes to five that there has been no
         violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1,
         art. 6-2) of the Convention arising out of the drawing
         of adverse inferences on account
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with
         paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
         as regards the applicant's lack
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with
         paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
         as regards the applicant's lack
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with
         paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
         as regards the applicant's lack
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with
         paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
         as regards the applicant's lack
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with
         paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
         as regards the applicant's lack
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with
         paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
         as regards the applicant's lack
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with
         paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
         as regards the applicant's lack
Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with
         paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
         as regards the applicant's lack
Holds by six votes to three that as domestic remedies have not
        been exhausted it cannot consider the merits of the case.
Holds by six votes to three that as domestic remedies have not
        been exhausted it cannot consider the merits of the case.
Holds by six votes to three that as domestic remedies have not
        been exhausted it cannot consider the merits of the case.
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 (art. 6) of
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 (art. 6) of
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 (art. 6) of
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 (art. 6) of
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 (art. 6) of
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 (art. 6) of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a breach of
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has not been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from his trial;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation
     of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation
     of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation
     of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation
     of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation
     of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation
     of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation
     of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation
     of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to four that there has been a
        breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seventeen votes to four that there has been no violation
      of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1); Article 5 para. 5 of the
      Convention (art. 5-5) is not applicable;
Holds by seven votes to two that it is not necessary also
        to examine the case under Article 3 (art. 3) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that it is not necessary also
        to examine the case under Article 3 (art. 3) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that it is not necessary also
        to examine the case under Article 3 (art. 3) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that it is not necessary also
        to examine the case under Article 3 (art. 3) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that it is not necessary also
        to examine the case under Article 3 (art. 3) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that it is not necessary also
        to examine the case under Article 3 (art. 3) of the
        Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by six votes to three that there was no such violation
         thereafter;
Holds by six votes to three that there was no such violation
         thereafter;
Holds by six votes to three that there was no such violation
         thereafter;
Holds by six votes to three that there was no such violation
         thereafter;
Holds by six votes to three that there was no such violation
         thereafter;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 para. 1 of the
        Convention (art. 6-1) was not applicable to the proceedings
        complained of and was accordingly not breached.
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 para. 1 of the
        Convention (art. 6-1) was not applicable to the proceedings
        complained of and was accordingly not breached.
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 para. 1 of the
        Convention (art. 6-1) was not applicable to the proceedings
        complained of and was accordingly not breached.
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 para. 1 of the
        Convention (art. 6-1) was not applicable to the proceedings
        complained of and was accordingly not breached.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
        Article 10 of the Convention (art. 10);
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in respect of the
        length of the proceedings.
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in respect of the
        length of the proceedings.
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in respect of the
        length of the proceedings.
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in respect of the
        length of the proceedings.
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in respect of the
        length of the proceedings.
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in respect of the
        length of the proceedings.
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in respect of the
        length of the proceedings.
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in respect of the
        length of the proceedings.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken alone;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken alone;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken alone;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken alone;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken alone;
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8);
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8);
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8);
Holds, by six votes to three, that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8.
Holds, by seven votes to two, that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 taken together with
        Article 6 para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-d) of the
        Convention.
Holds, by seven votes to two, that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 taken together with
        Article 6 para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-d) of the
        Convention.
Holds, by seven votes to two, that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 taken together with
        Article 6 para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-d) of the
        Convention.
Holds, by seven votes to two, that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 taken together with
        Article 6 para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-d) of the
        Convention.
Holds, by seven votes to two, that there has been no
        violation of Article 6 para. 1 taken together with
        Article 6 para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+art. 6-3-d) of the
        Convention.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a violation of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Dismisses by six votes to one the Government's preliminary objections; Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
         Convention with respect to Mr A, Mr Eg, Mr C and his
         widow, Mr D, Mr E, Mr F and his widow a
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
         Convention with respect to Mr A, Mr Eg, Mr C and his
         widow, Mr D, Mr E, Mr F and his widow a
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
         Convention with respect to Mr A, Mr Eg, Mr C and his
         widow, Mr D, Mr E, Mr F and his widow a
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
         Convention with respect to Mr A, Mr Eg, Mr C and his
         widow, Mr D, Mr E, Mr F and his widow a
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a
         violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
         Convention with respect to Mr A, Mr Eg, Mr C and his
         widow, Mr D, Mr E, Mr F and his widow a
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case;
Dismisses by six votes to three the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by six votes to three the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by six votes to three the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention taken together with Article 6
      para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+6-3-d);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention taken together with Article 6
      para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+6-3-d);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention taken together with Article 6
      para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+6-3-d);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of
      Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention taken together with Article 6
      para. 3 (d) (art. 6-1+6-3-d);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach of
        Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Dismisses by five votes to two the request for revision.
Dismisses by five votes to two the request for revision.
Dismisses by five votes to two the request for revision.
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seventeen votes to three that it is not necessary to
        consider the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
        taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 14+8).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 6-1).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 6-1).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 6-1).
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 6-1).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no
        violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) in respect
        of any of the applicants;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) in respect
        of any of the applicants;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Decides by fourteen votes to six to join the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits;
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by thirteen votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and that it is therefore not necessary to decide the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of dom
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in relation to the composition        of the jury;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in relation to the composition        of the jury;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in relation to the composition        of the jury;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in relation to the composition        of the jury;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation
        of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in relation to the composition        of the jury;
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
        Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
        India being implemented, there would be a violation of
        Article 3 of the Co
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
        violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Kemal K?l?ç in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Kemal K?l?ç in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Kemal K?l?ç in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 8).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 8).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 8).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 8).
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of
        it (art. 8).
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Hasan Kaya in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; that there has
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Hasan Kaya in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; that there has
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Hasan Kaya in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; that there has
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the ?zmir National Security Court;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant and her surviving siblings;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant and her surviving siblings;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant and her surviving siblings;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant and her surviving siblings;
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Zübeyir Akkoç in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Zübeyir Akkoç in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State failed to protect the life of Zübeyir Akkoç in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention; no violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention; no violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention; no violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention; no violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds, by 6 votes to 1, that there has been both a substantive and procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the case of the applicants Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem, Meral Dani? Be?ta?, Hüsniye Ölmez, ?inasi Tur
Holds, by 6 votes to 1, that there has been both a substantive and procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the case of the applicants Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem, Meral Dani? Be?ta?, Hüsniye Ölmez, ?inasi Tur
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by fifteen votes to six the preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) was applicable in the present case;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) was applicable in the present case;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) was applicable in the present case;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) was applicable in the present case;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) was applicable in the present case;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 para. 1 of the
      Convention (art. 6-1) was applicable in the present case;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 9 with regard to the measures taken against the first and third applicants for the proselytising of airman Kafkas;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 9 with regard to the measures taken against the first and third applicants for the proselytising of airman Kafkas;
Holds by four votes to three that the respondent State has not failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State is liable for the death of Abdulvahap Timurta? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of Article 2 of a violation of Article 3
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State is liable for the death of Abdulvahap Timurta? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of Article 2 of a violation of Article 3
Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State is liable for the death of Abdulvahap Timurta? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of Article 2 of a violation of Article 3
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the Government is liable for the death of the eleven missing relatives of the applicants in violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account
Holds by six votes to one that the Government is liable for the death of the eleven missing relatives of the applicants in violation of Article 2 of the Convention;  violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; the State has failed to comply with its obligations u
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; the State has failed to comply with its obligations u
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2);
Holds by seven votes to two that there has not been a breach
        of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2);
Holds by seven votes to two that neither Article 6 § 1 nor Article 13 of the Convention applies in this case;
Holds by seven votes to two that neither Article 6 § 1 nor Article 13 of the Convention applies in this case;
Holds by seven votes to two that neither Article 6 § 1 nor Article 13 of the Convention applies in this case;
Holds by seven votes to two that neither Article 6 § 1 nor Article 13 of the Convention applies in this case;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies in the case and that there has been a violation of it;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies in the case and that there has been a violation of it;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies in the case and that there has been a violation of it;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies in the case and that there has been a violation of it;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant herself; that the respondent State has failed to comply
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant herself; that the respondent State has failed to comply
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant herself; that the respondent State has failed to comply
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant herself; that the respondent State has failed to comply
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant herself; that the respondent State has failed to comply
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with paragraph 3 (b);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with paragraph 3 (b);
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with paragraph 3 (b);
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by seventeen votes to three (a) that the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may ha
Holds by six votes to one that the Government is liable for the death of Muhsin Ta? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; has been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention; Article 13 of the C
Holds by six votes to one that the Government is liable for the death of Muhsin Ta? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; has been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention; Article 13 of the C
Holds by six votes to one that the Government is liable for the death of Muhsin Ta? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; has been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention; Article 13 of the C
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation
      of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3) if the order for the
      applicant's deportation were to be executed.
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fifteen votes to six that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s trial;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s trial;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s trial;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s trial;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s trial;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s trial;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s sentence;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s sentence;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s sentence;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s sentence;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s sentence;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s sentence;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by eighteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the first applicant;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the first applicant;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the first applicant;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the first applicant;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the first applicant;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds, by 4 votes to 3, that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Perks;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Perks;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that the respondent State failed to provide safe custody of the transcripts of the telephone conversations and to subsequently
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that the finding of a violation in itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable in the case and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable in the case and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable in the case and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable and has been breached;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1 ;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Selim, Hasan and Cezayir Orhan; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant; a violation
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Selim, Hasan and Cezayir Orhan; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant; a violation
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Selim, Hasan and Cezayir Orhan; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant; a violation
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of Mehmet ?erif Av?ar’
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of Mehmet ?erif Av?ar’
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of Mehmet ?erif Av?ar’
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning J.;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning J.;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning J.;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning J.;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning J.;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning J.;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning M.;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning M.;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning M.;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning M.;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning M.;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning M.;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s sons;  violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s sons;  violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that no violation of Article 13 of the Convention has been established by reason of an alleged practice of failing to secure effective remedies to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus
Holds by eleven votes to six that no violation of Article 13 of the Convention has been established by reason of an alleged practice of failing to secure effective remedies to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus
Holds by eleven votes to six that no violation of Article 13 of the Convention has been established by reason of an alleged practice of failing to secure effective remedies to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus
Holds by eleven votes to six that no violation of Article 13 of the Convention has been established by reason of an alleged practice of failing to secure effective remedies to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable in the case and has been breached;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable in the case and has been breached;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable in the case and has been breached;
Holds by seven votes to two that as domestic remedies have not been exhausted it cannot consider the merits of the case.
Holds by seven votes to two that as domestic remedies have not been exhausted it cannot consider the merits of the case.
Holds by seven votes to two that as domestic remedies have not been exhausted it cannot consider the merits of the case.
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection;
Dismisses by seven votes to two the Government’s preliminary objection;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies in the case and that there has been a violation of it;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies in the case and that there has been a violation of it;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies in the case and that there has been a violation of it;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies in the case and that there has been a violation of it;
Holds by six votes to one that the Government are liable for the death of Mahmut Tanl? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the Government are liable for the death of Mahmut Tanl? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the Government are liable for the death of Mahmut Tanl? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the Government are liable for the death of Mahmut Tanl? in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Decides, by six votes to one, to strike the application out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Decides, by six votes to one, to strike the application out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Decides, by six votes to one, to strike the application out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case.
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case.
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case.
Holds by five votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case.
Holds by 6 votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by 6 votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment in Pianosa Prison;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment in Pianosa Prison;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment in Pianosa Prison;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment in Pianosa Prison;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment in Pianosa Prison;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the national authorities' investigations into the death of the applicant's husband; 
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the national authorities' investigations into the death of the applicant's husband; 
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the national authorities' investigations into the death of the applicant's husband; 
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in relation to Ahmet Demiray's death;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in relation to Ahmet Demiray's death;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in relation to Ahmet Demiray's death;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by thirteen votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by thirteen votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds by thirteen votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.
Holds, by six votes to one, that there has not been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s trial by the martial-law court, which lacked independence and impartiality;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s trial by the martial-law court, which lacked independence and impartiality;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s trial by the Martial Law Court which lacked independence and impartiality;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s trial by the Martial Law Court which lacked independence and impartiality;
Holds by twelve votes to five that, by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds by twelve votes to five that, by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds by twelve votes to five that, by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds by twelve votes to five that, by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds by twelve votes to five that, by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds by twelve votes to five that, by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the treatment to which the applicant was subjected during his arrest;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the fairness of the proceedings before an impartial tribunal;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the fairness of the proceedings before an impartial tribunal;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8, in respect of the application of section 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code in the instant case;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8, in respect of the application of section 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code in the instant case;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8, in respect of the application of section 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code in the instant case;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8, in respect of the application of section 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code in the instant case;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8, in respect of the application of section 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code in the instant case;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8, in respect of the application of section 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code in the instant case;
6. Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Court of Cassation's refusal to submit the preliminary questions concerning the connection rule and
6. Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Court of Cassation's refusal to submit the preliminary questions concerning the connection rule and
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the supplementary pleadings filed by the applicants were declared inadmissible;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the supplementary pleadings filed by the applicants were declared inadmissible;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the supplementary pleadings filed by the applicants were declared inadmissible;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the access rights;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that the tenor of the advocate-general's submissions was not communicated to the applicants and th
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that the tenor of the advocate-general's submissions was not communicated to the applicants and th
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that the tenor of the advocate-general's submissions was not communicated to the applicants and th
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that the tenor of the advocate-general's submissions was not communicated to the applicants and th
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that the tenor of the advocate-general's submissions was not communicated to the applicants and th
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 2 of the Convention is applicable but has not been violated;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 2 of the Convention is applicable but has not been violated;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 2 of the Convention is applicable but has not been violated;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Article 2 of the Convention is applicable but has not been violated;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
Dit, par 5 voix contre 2, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention quant au droit à un tribunal pour contester la soumission au régime E.I.V ;
Dit, par 5 voix contre 2, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention quant au droit à un tribunal pour contester la soumission au régime E.I.V ;
Holds by six votes to one that the applicant may claim to be a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing before the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that it is not necessary to examine the complaint based on Article 8 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14;
Holds by five votes to two that it is not necessary to examine the complaint based on Article 8 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14;
Holds by five votes to two that it is not necessary to examine the complaint based on Article 8 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the death of the applicant’s brother; 
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the death of the applicant’s brother; 
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention in respect of the right to be presumed innocent;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention in respect of the right to be presumed innocent;
Dit, par 6 voix contre 1, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention
Dit, par 6 voix contre 1, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was not applicable tand has not been violated;
Holds by six votes to one that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was not applicable tand has not been violated;
Holds by six votes to one that, as regards the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by the MP, there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; as regards the unavailability of legal aid, there has been no vio
Holds by six votes to one that, as regards the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by the MP, there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; as regards the unavailability of legal aid, there has been no vio
Holds by six votes to one that, as regards the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by the MP, there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; as regards the unavailability of legal aid, there has been no vio
Holds by six votes to one that there has not been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has not been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by ten votes to seven that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by ten votes to seven that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by ten votes to seven that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by ten votes to seven that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the applicant's allegation that his wife was killed in circumstances engaging the responsibility of agents of the re
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the applicant's allegation that his wife was killed in circumstances engaging the responsibility of agents of the re
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Violation of Article 13
Violation of Article 13
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by 5 votes to 2 that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
Holds by 5 votes to 2 that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the applicants’ complaints about public hearings; no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the applicants’ complaints about public hearings; no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention arising out of the drawing of adverse inferences from the applicant's silence; no violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Conventi
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention arising out of the drawing of adverse inferences from the applicant's silence; no violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Conventi
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention arising out of the drawing of adverse inferences from the applicant's silence; no violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Conventi
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the second applicant; 
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention in respect of the right to be presumed innocent;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention in respect of the right to be presumed innocent;
Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of access to a court;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of access to a court;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of access to a court;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of access to a court;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of access to a court;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the failure to carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant's allegations of assaults in Ivano-Fra
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the failure to carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant's allegations of assaults in Ivano-Fra
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants to a fair trial;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants to a fair trial;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants to a fair trial;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right of the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants to a fair trial;
Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention; 
Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention; 
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the Conseil d’Etat’s deliberations;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the Conseil d’Etat’s deliberations;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the Conseil d’Etat’s deliberations;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the Conseil d’Etat’s deliberations;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the Conseil d’Etat’s deliberations;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 of the Convention applies to the proceedings against the applicants; been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of both applicants;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 of the Convention applies to the proceedings against the applicants; been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of both applicants;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 of the Convention applies to the proceedings against the applicants; been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of both applicants;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 of the Convention applies to the proceedings against the applicants; been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of both applicants;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 of the Convention applies to the proceedings against the applicants; been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of both applicants;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 of the Convention applies to the proceedings against the applicants; been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of both applicants;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 of the Convention applies to the proceedings against the applicants; been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of both applicants;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
Rejects by six votes to one the Government's request that the application be struck out of the list of cases
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 quant au droit à un tribunal ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 quant au droit à un tribunal ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 quant au droit à un tribunal ;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Held by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Held by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is not applicable;
.  Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
.  Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
1.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Par ces motifs, la Cour, PAR SIX VOIX CONTRE UNE,

1. Dit qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Par ces motifs, la Cour, PAR SIX VOIX CONTRE UNE,

1. Dit qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8.
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8.
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8.
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8.
Holds by ten votes to seven that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8.
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Dismisses by six votes to one the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies; Article 10 violation
Dismisses by six votes to one the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies; Article 10 violation
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention; no violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention; no violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Dit, par quatre voix contre trois, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par quatre voix contre trois, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by eleven votes to six that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the use at trial of the materials obtained by the covert listening devices;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the use at trial of the materials obtained by the covert listening devices;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the use at trial of the materials obtained by the covert listening devices;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal; Holds by six votes to one that there has been a
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal; Holds by six votes to one that there has been a
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the criminal proceedings in Uzbekistan;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the criminal proceedings in Uzbekistan;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the criminal proceedings in Uzbekistan;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the criminal proceedings in Uzbekistan;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the criminal proceedings in Uzbekistan;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the criminal proceedings in Uzbekistan;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Turkey has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Turkey has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Turkey has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Turkey has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Turkey has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that Turkey has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention;
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 10 de la Convention ;
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 10 de la Convention ;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by eleven votes to six that the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as regards its positive obligations;
Holds by eleven votes to six that the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as regards its positive obligations;
Holds by eleven votes to six that the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as regards its positive obligations;
Holds by eleven votes to six that the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as regards its positive obligations;
Holds by eleven votes to six that the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as regards its positive obligations;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Moldova on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ila?cu and the conditions in which he was detained while under the
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Moldova on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ila?cu and the conditions in which he was detained while under the
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Moldova on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ila?cu and the conditions in which he was detained while under the
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Moldova on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ila?cu and the conditions in which he was detained while under the
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Moldova on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ila?cu and the conditions in which he was detained while under the
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by 9 votes to 8 that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by 9 votes to 8 that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by 9 votes to 8 that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by 9 votes to 8 that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by 9 votes to 8 that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by 9 votes to 8 that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that the applicant can claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the applicant can claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the respondent State’s obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life by law;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the respondent State’s obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life by law;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the respondent State’s obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life by law;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the respondent State’s obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life by law;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds, by 5 votes to 2, that there has been a violation of Articles 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds, by 5 votes to 2, that there has been a violation of Articles 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention;
Dit, par 5 voix contre 2, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the refusal to hold an oral hearing;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the refusal to hold an oral hearing;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the refusal to hold an oral hearing;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants as regards the subsequent procedures concerning the applications for care and freeing for adopti
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants as regards the subsequent procedures concerning the applications for care and freeing for adopti
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants as regards the subsequent procedures concerning the applications for care and freeing for adopti
Rejects, by twelve votes to five, the application as inadmissible
Rejects, by twelve votes to five, the application as inadmissible
Rejects, by twelve votes to five, the application as inadmissible
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Dismisses by six votes to one the Government's preliminary objection;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 3 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention ;
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 11 de la Convention, et qu’il ne s’impose pas d’examiner séparément le grief tiré de l’article 10 de la Convention ;
Holds by six votes to one that the expulsion of the applicant to Sri Lanka would not violate Article 3 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that the expulsion of the applicant to Sri Lanka would not violate Article 3 of the Convention.
Holds, by 6 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s constructive dismissal and severance pay;
Holds, by 6 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s constructive dismissal and severance pay;
Holds, by 6 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s constructive dismissal and severance pay;
Holds by 5 votes to 2 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by 5 votes to 2 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does apply to the set of proceedings concerning the property located in Katowice;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does apply to the set of proceedings concerning the property located in Katowice;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention;
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 (see paragraph 184 above);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 (see paragraph 184 above);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 (see paragraph 184 above);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 (see paragraph 184 above);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 (see paragraph 184 above);
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 (see paragraph 184 above);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu'il y avait entre les requérants et les mineures adoptées un lien constitutif d'une « vie familiale », au sens de l'article 8 § 1 de la Convention, lequel est applicable en l'occurren
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu'il y avait entre les requérants et les mineures adoptées un lien constitutif d'une « vie familiale », au sens de l'article 8 § 1 de la Convention, lequel est applicable en l'occurren
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu'il y avait entre les requérants et les mineures adoptées un lien constitutif d'une « vie familiale », au sens de l'article 8 § 1 de la Convention, lequel est applicable en l'occurren
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de l'article 8 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de l'article 8 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de l'article 8 de la Convention ;
Dit, par quatre voix contre trois, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par quatre voix contre trois, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par quatre voix contre trois, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3);
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3);
Holds by eleven votes to four that the absence of public pronouncement of that Court's judgment did not contravene the said Article (art. 6-1).
Holds by eleven votes to four that the absence of public pronouncement of that Court's judgment did not contravene the said Article (art. 6-1).
Holds by eleven votes to four that the absence of public pronouncement of that Court's judgment did not contravene the said Article (art. 6-1).
Holds by eleven votes to four that the absence of public pronouncement of that Court's judgment did not contravene the said Article (art. 6-1).
Holds by eleven votes to four that the absence of public pronouncement of that Court's judgment did not contravene the said Article (art. 6-1).
Holds by eleven votes to four that the absence of public pronouncement of that Court's judgment did not contravene the said Article (art. 6-1).
Holds by eleven votes to four that the absence of public pronouncement of that Court's judgment did not contravene the said Article (art. 6-1).
Holds by eleven votes to four that the absence of public pronouncement of that Court's judgment did not contravene the said Article (art. 6-1).
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention on account of the non-compliance with procedural guarantees;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention on account of the non-compliance with procedural guarantees;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention on account of the non-compliance with procedural guarantees;
Holds by six votes to one that the applicants' conviction did not infringe Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the applicants' conviction did not infringe Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the applicants' conviction did not infringe Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that the applicants' conviction did not infringe Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that the confiscation of the paintings did not infringe Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that the confiscation of the paintings did not infringe Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that the confiscation of the paintings did not infringe Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that the confiscation of the paintings did not infringe Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by sixteen votes to three that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10);
Holds by six votes to one that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention applied in the instant case and that there has been a breach of it;
Holds by six votes to one that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention applied in the instant case and that there has been a breach of it;
Holds by six votes to one that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention applied in the instant case and that there has been a breach of it;
Holds by six votes to one that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention applied in the instant case and that there has been a breach of it;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been a breach of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation         of that provision.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation         of that provision.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation         of that provision.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation         of that provision.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation         of that provision.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no violation         of that provision.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of         Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c) of the         Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of         Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c) of the         Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of         Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c) of the         Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of         Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c) of the         Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of         Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c) of the         Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been no breach of         Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c) of the         Convention.
Holds by five votes to four that there has not been a violation of    Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).
Holds by five votes to four that there has not been a violation of    Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).
Holds by five votes to four that there has not been a violation of    Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).
Holds by five votes to four that there has not been a violation of    Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).
Holds by five votes to four that there has not been a violation of    Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).
Holds by five votes to four that there has not been a violation of    Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).
Holds by six votes to three that Article 8 (art. 8) applies in this case;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 8 (art. 8) applies in this case;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 8 (art. 8) applies in this case;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 8 (art. 8) applies in this case;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 8 (art. 8) applies in this case;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 8 (art. 8) applies in this case;
Holds by six votes to three that Article 8 (art. 8) applies in this case;
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach       of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach       of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach       of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach       of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach       of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach       of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8);
Holds by five votes to four that there has been a breach       of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8);
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c);
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c);
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c);
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by seven votes to two that Article 6 § 2 is applicable in the present case and has been violated;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by twelve votes to eight that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach     of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach     of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach     of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach     of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach     of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach     of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case; 
Holds by twelve votes to five that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in the instant case; 
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Dit, par 4 voix contre 3, qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 5 §§ 3 et 5 de la Convention.
Dit, par 4 voix contre 3, qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 5 §§ 3 et 5 de la Convention.
Dit, par 4 voix contre 3, qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 5 §§ 3 et 5 de la Convention.
Dit, par six voix contre une, que les articles 6 § 1 et 13 de la Convention ne sont pas applicables en l’espèce.
Dit, par six voix contre une, que les articles 6 § 1 et 13 de la Convention ne sont pas applicables en l’espèce.
Dit, par six voix contre une, que les articles 6 § 1 et 13 de la Convention ne sont pas applicables en l’espèce.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1 ;
Dit, par 6 voix contre 1, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention.
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention.
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ; 
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ; 
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention ; 
dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ; 
dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ; 
dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ; 
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il n' y a pas eu violation de l'article 3 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il n' y a pas eu violation de l'article 3 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 §1 of the Convention
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the national authorities' failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the appl
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the complaints under Article 2 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1(c) of the Convention in respect of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 1 October 1997 to 1 November 1999
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1(c) of the Convention in respect of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 1 October 1997 to 1 November 1999
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1(c) of the Convention in respect of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 1 October 1997 to 1 November 1999
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 3 as regards the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 3 as regards the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 3 as regards the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 3 as regards the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial;
Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a violation of Article 3 as regards the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial;
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to determine whether there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to determine whether there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to determine whether there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to determine whether there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to determine whether there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to determine whether there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the allegation that the events leading to the death of Angelov and Petkov constitu
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the allegation that the events leading to the death of Angelov and Petkov constitu
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the allegation that the events leading to the death of Angelov and Petkov constitu
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the allegation that the events leading to the death of Angelov and Petkov constitu
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the allegation that the events leading to the death of Angelov and Petkov constitu
Holds by eleven votes to six that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the allegation that the events leading to the death of Angelov and Petkov constitu
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that the applicant’s expulsion to the Democratic Republic of Congo would amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that the applicant’s expulsion to the Democratic Republic of Congo would amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant's complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant's complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that it is unnecessary to examine separately the applicant's complaint under Article 14 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by nine votes to eight that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by four votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 6.1 of the convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 6.1 of the convention
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Sørensen;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Sørensen;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Sørensen;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Sørensen;
Holds by twelve votes to five that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Sørensen;
Holds by a majority for pecuniary damages -- refer to case of popov v. moldova PART 2
Holds by a majority for pecuniary damages -- refer to case of popov v. moldova PART 2
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention
Holds by four votes to three that the respondent State is to pay the applicant
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the lack of a procedure by which the applicant could seek effective protection of his right to respect for his private life;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the lack of a procedure by which the applicant could seek effective protection of his right to respect for his private life;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds, by eleven votes to six, that it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds, by eleven votes to six, that it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds, by eleven votes to six, that it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds, by eleven votes to six, that it is unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case.
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention;
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il n’ y a pas eu violation de l’article 5 § 1 a) de la Convention
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il n’ y a pas eu violation de l’article 5 § 1 a) de la Convention
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il n’ y a pas eu violation de l’article 5 § 1 a) de la Convention
Dit, cinq voix contre deux, qu’il n’ y a pas eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention ;
Dit, cinq voix contre deux, qu’il n’ y a pas eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention ;
Dit, cinq voix contre deux, qu’il n’ y a pas eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention ;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of State Counsel’s position in the proceedings before the Court of Audit;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of State Counsel’s position in the proceedings before the Court of Audit;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of State Counsel’s position in the proceedings before the Court of Audit;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of State Counsel’s position in the proceedings before the Court of Audit;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of State Counsel’s position in the proceedings before the Court of Audit;
Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of State Counsel’s position in the proceedings before the Court of Audit;
 Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; and Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 12 of the Convention;
Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention; and Holds by 4 votes to 3 that there has been no violation of Article 12 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the deaths of Ibrahim Erdogan, Yücel Simsek, Ibrahim Ilci, Cavit Özkaya and Hasan Eliuygun;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the deaths of Ibrahim Erdogan, Yücel Simsek, Ibrahim Ilci, Cavit Özkaya and Hasan Eliuygun;
Dit, par quatre voix contre trois, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 10 de la Convention ;
Dit, par quatre voix contre trois, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 10 de la Convention ;
Dit, par quatre voix contre trois, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 10 de la Convention ;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds by six votes to one that it is not necessary to rule on the allegation of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Dit, par six voix contre une, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 8 de la Convention ;
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 4 § 3 (d);
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 4 § 3 (d);
Dit, par cinq voix contre deux, qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 8 de la Convention.
Decides by six votes to one to revise the judgment as a whole and to strike the case out of the list.
Dit, par 6 voix contre 1, qu’il n’y pas a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention,
Dit, par 6 voix contre 1, qu’il n’y pas a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention,
Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Holds by five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.