impartiality under 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 her guilt (see Karelin

of the objective impartiality requirement under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention in the present applications because of the absence of a prosecuting party (see, among other authorities, Karelin

guilt, was there a violation of the requirement of objective impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in those cases on account of the lack of a prosecuting party under the CAO (compare with Karelin

A.A., est un ressortissant somalien, né en 1982 et résidant à Kapellen.

requirement under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention in the present applications because of the absence of a prosecuting party from the proceedings (see, among other authorities,   Karelin

relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin

relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin

relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin

The relevant principles concerning the specific issue of lack of impartiality owing to the absence of a public prosecutor from trial may be found in Karelin v. Russia (no.

Russia (no. 46998/08, 19 November 2015), and Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 35.

HAUTE-LOIRE La CAISSE DE CREDIT MUTUEL PORTE DU VELAY Caisse de crédit mutuel immatriculée au RCS du Puy En Velay sous le n° 421 733 361 00016 [Adresse 1] [Localité 4] Représentant : la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT

of the Convention in respect of each applicant on account of (a) the applicants’ absence from the court hearings and/or (b) the lack of a prosecuting party in the proceedings before the courts (see Karelin

to the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin

to the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin

    Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of the prosecuting party from the proceedings (see Karelin v.   Russia , no.

    Has there been a violation of the impartiality requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of the prosecuting party from the proceedings (see Karelin v.

APPLICATIONS: Has there been a violation of the impartiality requirement under Article   6   § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of the prosecuting party from the proceedings (see Karelin

relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin

relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin