Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v.

    In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

    The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin

Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; and Karelin v.

Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia , no.

  72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8   October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; and Karelin v.   Russia , no.

Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v.

    In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in its well-established case-law (see, among other numerous authorities, Karelin

    The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v.

    In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

    In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

Their submissions in that connection were similar to those made in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§   45-48, 20 September 2016).

Maître Martine DUPUIS de la SELARL LEXAVOUE PARIS-VERSAILLES, Postulant, avocat au barreau de VERSAILLES, vestiaire : 625 - N° du dossier 2167604 - Représentant : Maître Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT

    Were the courts which dealt with the applicants’ cases impartial, as required by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia , no.

  34202/06, §   34, 10 July 2012; Mikha ylova , cited above, § 49; Karelin v. Russia , no.   926/08, § 41, 20   September 2016; and Vyacheslav Korchagin v.

  72051/17, §§   34-36, 8   October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; and Karelin v.

party in the relevant proceedings entail a violation of the principles of equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (in this connection, see Karelin

Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Karelin v.