This was as also recently confirmed in the Constitutional Court judgment of 23 November 2020 in the names of Cassar Barbara vs Attorney General et .

It therefore perceived no cause to hold that the possibility of giving notification of decisions solely by electronic means was, as such, contrary to Article 6. 16 .

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account;   3.

  57576/00, 3   October 2002, and Barbača v. Croatia (dec.), no. 63779/00, 18   September 2003). 35.

the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Barberà

  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d);   3.

Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 98, ECHR 1999 III; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 17, Series A no. 285-C; Papamichalopoulos and Others v.

The applicant challenged the court's decision and asked it to hold a confrontation itself. 47.

application (no. 2065/03) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ms Barbara

In conclusion, the Court holds that the experts’ report is valid and is to be taken into account for the purposes of giving a decision. II. DAMAGE A. Pecuniary damage 1.

It suggested that the organisers hold the event at an aeronautical club in one of the Moscow suburbs. 11.

The trial court went on to hold that the applicants chanted slogans such as “Bastards of Atatürk”, “Long live Öcalan”, “The PKK is the people and the people are here” and “We would destroy a world without

Belgium (Article 50), 10   March 1972, § 16, Series A no. 14, and Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v.   Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 17, Series A no. 285-C). 39.

To this extent, it must therefore be dismissed as out of time (see, inter alia, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo judgment of 8 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 27, § 56). B.

In appropriate cases, this may include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v.

Reinoso Barbero , Ms F. Molina Agea , and Ms A. Domínguez Bravo ,   Advisers; (b)     for the applicant Mr P. Muzny , Mr S. Brady , and Mr D. García Martín ,   Counsel .

This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ... 2.

ÖNÁLLÓ EGYESÜLETE 2001   Miklósné CSER 1937   Menyhért CSERI 1958   Márkóné CSILITY 1969   Lászlóné CSILLING 1939   Istvánné CSONTH 1944   Ernőné CSONTOS 1961   Barnabás

against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Ms Barbara