Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant died, and no heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf.

  (b)     Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article   6 § 3 (d) of the Convention

The observations were forwarded to the applicants’ representative, who was invited to submit observations on behalf of the applicants. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

Regional Court could not properly have been examined without direct assessment of evidence given by applicant in person – applicant’s interests not represented at appeal since no counsel present on his behalf

Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because he was deprived of any opportunity to prove his innocence and was not able to obtain the attendance of two key witnesses on his behalf

The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on behalf of the applicant. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

On 12 July 2018 a private entity carried out the customs clearance of the vehicle on the applicant’s behalf.

The procedure was not subject to any specific time-limits when initiated on behalf of an accused.

the Court notes that it transpires from the registered letter returned to the Court that the applicant died, and no heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf

Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant died, and no heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf.

They also apply on behalf of their four children, Norwegian citizens born in 2005, 2009 and 2013 – the third to sixth applicants.

Mme A, ressortissante du Belarus, née le 4 avril 1984 à Talka, entrée en France pour y solliciter l'asile, a vu sa demande rejetée par une décision de la Cour nationale du droit d'asile du 19 avril 2022

Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Member of Parliament prevented by another Member of Parliament from completing a speech in Parliament: inadmissible The applicant was a Member of Parliament, elected on behalf

Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the

The observations were forwarded to the applicants’ representatives, who were invited to submit observations on behalf of their clients. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

’s behalf.

    On 2 September 1996, following an application on behalf of the Ministry of Defence in separate civil proceedings, the applicant was declared bankrupt.

of F.F., claiming that the latter had only accused him in order to obtain benefits for himself and his family; he further asked the reopening of the trial in order to hear certain witnesses on his behalf

    On 3 June 2013 C.B. lodged an appeal on the applicant’s behalf including a standard authority form used by lawyers ( mandat ) to confirm her representation of the applicant.

The present application was lodged by the applicant’s guardian and daughter, G.B., on behalf of her mother – the applicant.