1960     Nizhnevartovskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region - Yugra 17/06/2021   7,500   8460/22 13/01/2022 Dmitriy Georgiyevich CHUMACHENKO 1997 Pliskin Pavel Markovich

TORTURE 3. 37356/10 01/06/2010 Ilya Vladimirovich MILCHAKOV 05/08/1982 Moscow Russian   4. 40010/10 21/06/2010 Sergey Yuryevich PASYNKOV 22/05/1968 Yagul   5. 58843/10 06/09/2010 Vladimir Markovich

  52474/21* 30/09/2021 Andrey Markovich SOROCHKIN 1962 Olimpiada Valentinovna Usanova Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine

authorities should have exercised their discretion in another way (see Koufaki and ADEDY , decision cited above, §   48; Da Conceição Mateus and Santos Januário , decision cited above, §   28; and Markovics

It therefore considers it appropriate to join this objection to the merits (see, mutatis mutandis , Markovic and Others v Italy [GC], no.   1398/03, ECHR 2006 ‑ ...).

Thus, Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have a claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Markovic and Others v.

under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     35012/19 21/06/2019 Artem Markovich

offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   28312/20 03/07/2020 Yevgeniy Markovich

The Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article   6   §   1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no.

Lev Markovich Shlosberg («   le requérant   »), a saisi la Cour le 14 juin 2022 en vertu de l’article   34 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales

for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 27/07/2019; convicted under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000; final - Moscow City Court, 16/09/2019. 3,900   18170/20 11/03/2020 Yevgeniy Markovich

Regional Court 15/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   52474/21 30/09/2021 Andrey Markovich

caractère civil, au sens de l’article 6 de la Convention, il faut prendre pour point de départ les dispositions du droit national pertinent et l’interprétation qu’en font les juridictions internes ( Markovic

Suède , 25 novembre 1993, § 22, série A n o 279 ‑ B, Markovic et autres c. Italie [GC], n o 1398/03, § 93, CEDH 2006 ‑ XIV, et Micallef c.

Il en va de même lorsque le droit interne renvoie à des dispositions du droit international général ou d’accords internationaux ( Markovic et autres c.

motivées par une limitation du contrôle sur l’agissement fautif – par exemple pour un acte de politique étrangère, en l’occurrence un acte de guerre (CEDH, gr. ch., 14 décembre 2006, n o 1398/03, Markovic

article 6 de la Convention, il faut prendre pour point de départ les dispositions du droit national pertinent et l’interprétation qu’en font les juridictions internes ( Roche , précité, § 120   ; Markovic

concerned from suing for a given category of harm, that is not enough to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 98, ECHR   2001 ‑ V, and Markovic

not absolute and may be subject to limitations that do not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Markovic