MARCKX v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT 27 13. Holds by ten votes to five that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is applicable to Paula Marckx’s claims; 14. Holds by nine votes to six that there has been no breach of this Article (P1-1), taken alone, with respect to the same applicant; 15. Holds by ten votes to five that there has been breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-1), with respect to this applicant; VI. ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 12 (art. 3, art. 12) OF THE CONVENTION 16. Holds unanimously that there is no breach of Article 3 (art. 3) or of Article 12 (art. 12) of the Convention in the present case; VII. ON ARTICLE 50 (art. 50) 17. Holds by nine votes to six that the preceding findings amount in themselves to adequate just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention. Done in French and English, the French text being authentic, at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, this thirteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine. For the President Gérard WIARDA Vice-President Marc-André EISSEN Registrar The following separate opinions are annexed to the present judgment in accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the Convention and Rule 50 para. 2 of the Rules of Court: - joint dissenting opinion of Judges Balladore Pallieri, Pedersen, Ganshof van der Meersch, Evrigenis, Pinheiro Farinha and García de Enterría on the application of Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention; - partly dissenting opinion of Mr. O’Donoghue;