été communiquée au département de la Haute-Loire, la compagnie Groupama, la SASU Franck Beaulaigue Ingénierie, la SAS Moulin et à la SMABTP, ces trois dernières représentées par la société d'avocats Kaeppelin-Mabrut

Islande , 25 juin 1992, §§ 46-54, série A n o 239, et Karelin c. Russie , n o 926/08, §§ 51-85, 20 septembre 2016)   ?

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.

29773/18 and   31417/18, was the offence record ( протокол правонарушения ) used against each applicant as a piece of adverse evidence ( доказательство ) or as a bill of indictment (compare with Karelin

0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communiquée le 10 janvier 2020 Publié le 27 janvier 2020   TROISIÈME SECTION Requête n o 59590/18 Mikhail Yuryevich KARELIN

    For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions and practice, see the case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§   22-37, 20 September 2016).

NUMERO D'INSCRIPTION AU REPERTOIRE GENERAL : 2025 003564 TRIBUNAL DE COMMERCE DE QUIMPER DEUXIEME CHAMBRE JUGEMENT DU 03/10/2025 DEMANDEUR(S) : CAISSE DE CREDIT MUTUEL DE KASTELLIN, [Adresse 1], [Adresse

  Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – The lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v.

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention violated on account of the lack of a prosecuting party at the trial and appeal hearings and the use of the offence record as evidence proving the applicant’s guilt (see Karelin

Localité 4] Non comparante, non représentée CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL [Localité 3] HAUTE [Localité 3] [Adresse 3] [Localité 5] Représentant : Me Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT

MY MONEY BANK [Adresse 8] [Localité 5] Représentée par Me Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT, avocat au barreau de HAUTE-LOIRE et par Me Thierry WICKERS de la SELAS ELIGE BORDEAUX, avocat

RESIDENCE GRAND HOTEL MOURGUE [Adresse 3] [Localité 2] Représentée par Me Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT, avocat au barreau de HAUTE-LOIRE Timbre fiscal acquitté INTIMEE Après

[G], [O] [D] [Adresse 1] [Localité 2] et Mme [T] [Z] épouse [D] [Adresse 8] [Localité 2] Représentés par Me Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT, avocat au barreau de HAUTE-LOIRE APPELANTS

proceedings against the applicant, was it compatible with the principle of impartiality enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court took over the functions of the prosecution (compare Karelin

the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin

    Did the absence of the prosecuting party in all three sets of proceedings result in a breach of the impartiality requirement under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v.

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

§   34-36, 8   October 2019);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin