fair trial, of which equality of arms is one aspect, implies the right for the parties to have knowledge of and to comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed (see, for instance, Nideröst-Huber

  44962/98, §   31, ECHR 2003 ‑ V; Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland , 18 February 1997, §   23, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ I; and Kress v.

party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see, among many other authorities, Nideröst-Huber

evidence needed for their claims to succeed, but also to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence adduced or observations submitted, with a view to influencing the court’s decision (see Nideröst-Huber

Huber, a lawyer practising in Wien. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.

  No. 4597/71, Huber v.   Austria, Comm.   Rep. 8.2.73, para. 111, D.R. 2 p. 45; No. 8435/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 26, pp. 18, 20).

It must be stressed, in this respect, that the lawyer who had represented Huber before the Regional Court, drafted the plea of nullity.

France du 17 mars 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-II n° 32, pp. 410-411, par. 43 et arrêt Huber c.

The problem, in my humble opinion, is that the Tsonev decision, like the case before us, departed, with no particular justification, from the Court’s consistent case-law.

It just so happens that the mayor, contrary to what he thinks and is told by his sycophants, is not loved among the serious and honest citizens of Lourinhã, but since most people are humble and poor, unfortunately

Les matières qui vont être épandues, après passage dans le méthaniseur, soit sous forme solide avec un taux important d’humus, soit sous forme liquide moins chargée en azote, seront plus neutres concernant

Report 15.12.80, D.R. 23 p. 5, at p. 43, para. 196; Huber v. Austria, Comm. Report 8.2.73, D.R. 2 p. 11, at p. 21, para. 73).   In the present case this occurred on 16 December 1987.

  Humer, lawyers practising in Wels. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H.

In fact, Article 6 § 1 is intended above all to secure the interests of the parties and those of the proper administration of justice (see Nideröst-Huber v.

Ilona JÁNOSI 1940   Éva JÁNOSI PÁLNÉ GERGELYI 1942   Ervin JARABEK 1951   Zsolt JÁRAI 1960   Margit Katalin JÁRAINÉ SALÁNKI 1960   Ernőné JÁSZKA 1944   Mónika JERUSKÁNÉ HUBER

Spain judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 25, § 63; Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 18 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p.   108, § 24; Beer v.

  44-45, § 9; the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 19, § 46; the Toth v.

Belgium judgment of 26 May 1988, p. 20, § 46; the Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 154-B, ( Article 50 ), pp. 44-45, § 9; the Huber v.

party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among many other authorities, Nideröst-Huber