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.

prosecuting party and excessively active role of the trial court, as alleged by the applicant, entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality (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

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

[J] [G] [Adresse 4] [Localité 3] Représenté par Me Laura DANJOUX suppléant Me Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT, avocat au barreau de HAUTE-LOIRE INTIME Monsieur RUIN, Président

    Les requérants sont propriétaires de parcelles situées en zone forestière de la commune de Kapellen.

xa0;   Did the lack of a prosecuting party entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin

  Russia , no. 36673/04, 30 May 2013; Karelin v.   Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016; Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , nos.

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

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

and 24567/18 (proceedings at two levels of jurisdiction), were the courts which dealt with the applicants’ cases impartial, as required by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (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

    Was the requirement of objective impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention violated in the absence of a prosecuting party at the trial hearings (see Karelin v. Russia , no.

       Rend la décision suivante :   EN FAIT           Le requérant est un ressortissant belge, né en 1957 et domicilié à Kapellen

[B] [P] et Mme [R] [L] épouse [P] [Adresse 1] [Localité 4] Représentés par Maître Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT, avocat au barreau de HAUTE-LOIRE Timbre fiscal acquitté M.

Adresse 2] [Localité 6] Représentée par Me Philippe NOUVELLET de la SCP JACQUES AGUIRAUD ET PHILIPPE NOUVELLET, avocat au barreau de LYON, toque : 475 Assistée de Me Isabelle MABRUT, de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT-BREYSSE

  72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8   October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v.

    In each case, were the courts which dealt with the applicants’ cases impartial, as required by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (see Karelin v.   Russia , no.

    Was the requirement of objective impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention complied with in the above CAO cases against the applicant (compare with Karelin v.

    In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.