It noted already that the case before it was not directly concerned with Ms D.H.’s debt and the means to collect it, but was about the right to a fair trial in the proceedings concerning the preliminary

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)

Brčić , a lawyer practising in Biograd na Moru; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the applicant’s right to a fair hearing to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented

of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant had been subjected (see paragraph 8 above), thus undermining the applicant’s right to a fair

The presiding judge had asked the defendant whether the fact that the applicant had not showed up for work had been documented and formalised as the reason for withholding pay and the representative replied

    In view of the fact that the physical evidence found in the applicant’s bag was the primary evidence on which his criminal conviction was based, the Court considers that the foregoing considerations

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his conviction in absentia and the failure to reopen the proceedings ab initio had deprived him of a fair hearing.

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

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

In determining the circumstances in which the incident had occurred, the domestic courts had mainly relied on the fact that the applicant had been seen throwing Molotov cocktails at the police vehicles

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

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

of 29 March 2004 had become final or to the fact that the judgment in question had been enforced. 61.

assess the evidence before them, establish facts and interpret domestic law (see Ayetullah Ay , cited above, §   123, with further references).

THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms E. Zaghini and earlier some of the applicants had been represented by Mr R.

    The Court also cannot overlook the fact that the applicant’s arrest was not immediately documented by the police.

THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Sofia. He was represented by Mr M. Neykov, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv. 3.

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