The Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 applies throughout the entirety of proceedings for “the determination of ... any criminal charge” (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom , no. 41087/98,

  On 6 September 1985 the applicant attended an interview at M.E.L., a member of the Philips Electronic and associated industries group, in connection with a vacancy for a financial analyst.

) against the Republic of Malta lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Maltese nationals, Mr Philip

O’Brien Meryn Lesley Mrs 08/04/1961 Australian 5. Paulissen Christina Hubertina Elisabeth Mrs 02/08/1957 Dutch 6. Schardijn Reginald John Ricardo Mr 27/12/1959 Dutch 7.

He is represented before the Court by Mr   Philip Leach, Mr Cihan Aydın, Ms Reyhan Yalçındağ and Mr Metin Kılavuz. A.

The mere fact that the official receiver had made a request to that effect was not sufficient, as the practice at the time of the alleged offences required that the decision should be made by the meeting

This condition is not met by the mere fact that an applicant has submitted his case to the various competent courts.

Its role as guardian of the Constitution may make it particularly necessary for a Constitutional Court to take into account considerations other than the mere chronological order in which cases are entered

    Fourthly, the Government did not wish to speculate on the actual purpose of the money confiscated from the applicant but nevertheless stressed, in abstract terms, that the mere fact that

In 1998 the two organizations had decided to merge and had applied for registration to the Sofia City Court.

    According to the Government, the mere allegation of the applicants that they were owners of these plots, which were not precisely delineated in their application, did not mean that they were

    As to the first set of the proceedings, the Court finds that a mere inclusion in a conservation plan does not disclose the existence of “proceedings” as such.

This placed an excessive and disproportionate burden on her and deprived her of the "essence" of her right, in which respect she relied on Philis v. Greece (no.

defamation, to be distinguished from defamation “despite better knowledge”, that is to say, intentionally imputing an offence to K. whilst knowing that he had not committed it (rather than voicing a mere

However, the mere fact that the applicant had possessed weapons without a licence amounted to a criminal offence.

Serghides,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Alena Poláčková,   María Elósegui,   Gilberto Felici,   Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having

Philipp-Gerlach, of the Frankfurt Bar, and Mr R. Giebenrath, of the Freiburg (im Breisgau) Bar. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.

Serghides,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 May 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE

Chamber of the Third Section, composed of Paul   Lemmens, President, Helen Keller, Dmitry Dedov, Alena Poláčková, María Elósegui, Gilberto Felici, and Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen   Phillips