What is decisive is whether the fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy , 7   August 1996, §   58, Reports 1996 ‑ III, and Wettstein v.

What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy , judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 951 - 52, § 58). 43.

Court H.R., Holm judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-A, p. 14, para. 30 and, mutatis mutandis, No. 19874/92, Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, Comm. Rep. 2.3.95, unpublished).

  33958/96, §   44, ECHR 2000-XII, and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.   Italy , 7   August 1996, § 58, Reports 1996 ‑ III). 61.

Convention, “the standpoint of the accused [was] important but not decisive”; in this case the “fear” of lack of impartiality by the applicant had been “objectively justified” (see Ferrantelli and   Santangelo

The statements made by the President of the court were such as to objectively justify the applicant’s fears as to his impartiality (see, mutatis mutandis , the Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.

What is decisive is whether the fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.

What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Wettstein , cited above, § 44; and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.

  63226/00, 14 June 2001, and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.

Santangelo ,   Advisers ; (d)     for the applicant company Falgest S.r.l and the applicant Mr Filippo Gironda Mr   A. G. Lana , Mr   A.

Italy (no. 1) , no. 34896/97, 5 December 2002; Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy , 7 August 1996, Reports 1996 ‑ III; Zentar v. France , no.

What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Wettstein , cited above, § 44, and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.

In addition to the grounds already mentioned, it was noted that, in contrast to cases such as Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.

What is decisive is whether the fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Ferrantelli and   Santangelo v. Ital y , 7 August 1996, § 58, Reports 1996-III; Wettstein v.

He invoked the principles laid down by the Court in Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.   Italy (see judgment of 7   August 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).

What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Wettstein , cited above, § 44; and Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.

sense or by a co-accused, it constitutes evidence for the prosecution to which the guarantees provided by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention apply (see, mutatis mutandis , Ferrantelli and Santangelo

What is decisive is whether the fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Ferrantelli and Santangelo v.   Italy , 7   August 1996, §   58, Reports 1996‑III, Wettstein v.

Krasniki v. the Czech Republic , no. 51277/99, 28 February 2006) as well as from witnesses who were unavailable for examination during the criminal proceedings for various reasons ( Ferrantelli and Santangelo