The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.

THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Chisinau. 6.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, arguing that it was of a fourth   ‑   instance nature as it concerned, in essence, the domestic courts’ evaluation of the facts

THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Tirana. 7.

THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Chișinău. 6.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

    The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.

THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1972 and is detained in Jilava Prison. A.   Criminal proceedings against the applicant 6.

THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ details are set out in the Appendix. They were represented by Mr M. Shkolnik, a lawyer practising in Sochi. 3.

THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

THE FACTS 2 .     The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Sliven. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. 3.

THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.

    The applicants complained that the enactment of Law no. 296/2006 had violated their right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and constituted an unjustified interference

THE FACTS 3.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4.

The fact that some four months later he firmly contested that withdrawal and continued corresponding with the Court with a view to pursuing the application clearly shows that he has not lost interest in

THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.