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

margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 199 August-September 2016 Karelin

  6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 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 well ‑ established case-law (see Karelin v.

was download by the applicant     30798/21 11/06/2021 Andriy Vasylyovych SHCHERBYNA 1988 Mykola Vasylyovych DEMCHYSHYN absence of prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings ( Karelin

  20372/11, §§ 81-83, 11   April 2013); Karelin v.   Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016); and Lashmankin and Others v.

[G] [T] [Adresse 4] 43620 [Localité 30] assisté de Maître Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT, avocat au barreau de HAUTE-LOIRE INTIME DÉBATS : A l'audience publique du 23 mai 2022

lors de l'appel des causes et du prononcé ENTRE : CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL LOIRE HAUTE- LOIRE [Adresse 1] [Localité 1] Représentée par Maître Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT

  25501/07 and 4 others, 26   April 2016; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016; Frumkin v. Russia , no.   74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov and Others v.

administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin

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

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête et un mémoire enregistrés les 18 mai 2022 et 16 octobre 2024, la société à responsabilité limitée Vincent et Fils, représentée par 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.

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

Their submissions in that respect were similar to those made in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 46-48, 20 September 2016).

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.

margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 29 January 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 926/08 Mikhail Yuryevich KARELIN

charges 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

On 12   June 2012 the Court (First Section), sitting as a Committee, delivered a decision in a group of cases, which included the above application (see Kapulin and Others v.