super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 4247/15 KALMÁR 88 FAISKOLAI KFT against Hungary and 8 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 46381/16 Valentin VIAŞU against Romania and 18 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

Application no. 76759/14 Cosmin-Alexandru TALPOȘ against Romania and 20 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   February 2018 as

HUȚANU against Romania and Denis Iulian BĂLOI against Romania (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   February 2019 as a Committee composed

:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 48408/20 Gheorghiţă-Alin BURDUŞA against Romania and 19 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications

Arial; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 31753/14 László GRÓF and others against Hungary and 10 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

0pt; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 12343/17 Marian-Cătălin CORCIU-WERNHARDT against Romania and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

; padding-right:2.48pt; padding-left:2.48pt } .sA0E56848 { width:9.42%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:2.48pt; padding-left:2.48pt } .s962F73AD { width

of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right

in the trial the witnesses present during the applicant’s apprehension by the police and the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right

impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right

She contested having received adequate satisfaction for the violation of her rights.

clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA68E35A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right

Belgium (1),            The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the Convention

had infringed his right to respect for his family life.

  Relying on Article 6   § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the length of the administrative proceedings

impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right

page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 23 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9786/23 Daniel