He alleges violation of Articles 6 para. 1 and 6 para. 3 of the Convention.

  Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention In application no. 20892/15, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.

, according to Article 19 of the Convention.

Convention.

    The applicants in applications nos. 17151/10, 42661/10, 56687/10, 19778/16, 56539/19, 8605/22, 10449/22, 17052/22 and 17407/22 furthermore complained under Article   13 of the Convention

    Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 12.

The applicants’ attention was further drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the

The applicants’ attention was further drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the

They relied on Article 6   §   1 of the Convention.

Par conséquent, elle conclut à la non-violation de l’article 8 de la Convention de ce chef.

  In violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the courts allegedly took a prejudiced view against AJ, JK (or his successors) and MK in the various proceedings.

3 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

1230/25 N° RG 25/00491 - N° Portalis DBVT-V-B7J-WGTO OB/CH Jugement du Conseil de Prud'hommes - Formation paritaire de Saint Omer en date du 14 Mars 2023 (RG 22

COMPLAINTS Citing Articles 2, 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the implication of the State authority in the deadly road accident of 23 November 2003 and the ineffectiveness

The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting

The applicants complain, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, that the unjustified strip searches constituted degrading treatment and violated their right to respect for their private lives.