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

SMA [Adresse 6] [Localité 5] Représentée par Maître Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN-MABRUT, avocat au barreau de HAUTE-LOIRE Timbre fiscal acquitté S.A.

  72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v.

They distinguished the present case from that of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).

complaints also disclose violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, as indicated in the appended table, in the light of its findings in Navalnyy and Yashin, cited above, §§ 82-85 and §§   91-98; Karelin

    The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v.

    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.

    The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v.

application no. 29251/19 entail a violation of the principles of equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (in this connection, see   Karelin

Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; and Karelin v. Russia , no.

    The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v.

  Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Karelin v.

    Was the requirement of objective impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention violated on account of the lack of a prosecuting party at court hearings in both CAO cases (see Karelin

the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin

    The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v.

d'AURILLAC APPELANTS ET : Mme [G] [J] [Adresse 9] [Adresse 9] [Localité 4] et Mme [Y] [F] [Adresse 1] Taulhac [Localité 4] toutes deux assistées de Maître Isabelle MABRUT de la SELARL KAEPPELIN

Their submissions in that respect were similar to those made in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 46-48, 20 September 2016). 31.

xa0;   34421/17 07/04/2017 Timur Shodiyerovich Aldergott 28/04/1988     Kalininsky District Court of Tyumen 21/11/2016   7,500       35675/17 Aleksey Gennadiyevich Kaplin

  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.