Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken alone Reiteration of Court's case-law on concept of "impartial" tribunal.

The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 18   December 2021.

, concerning the count on which he had been acquitted by the District Court, after the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to overturn that acquittal on appeal.

a supprimé la décharge de poids accordée aux chevaux entraînés à Deauville ; Vu les autres pièces du dossier ; Vu la loi modifiée du 2 juin 1891 réglementant l'autorisation et le fonctionnement des courses

officers and officials from the European Court.

judicial officers and officials from the European Court.

The court also held that due to the close links between the suspects there was a risk that, if released, they might interfere with the course of the investigation.

On 25 June 1992 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision.

On 25 June 2004 the Tirana Court of Appeal, (“the Court of Appeal”), upheld the District Court’s judgment but changed the applicant’s sentence to 17 years’ imprisonment.

On 8   February   1999 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision.

It held that it was bound by the Constitutional Court’s legal conclusions and that the defects identified by that court in its judgment of 13 November 2013 likewise concerned the lower courts’ judgments

Moreover, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Regional Court's assessment of evidence had not been contrary to the law, and that Article 6 of the Convention did not require a public hearing in every

In particular, was the principle of legal certainty respected in the course of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, particularly when it was called to assess whether the applicant was entitled

Sentenza della Corte del 9 dicembre 1975.#Fernand Plaquevent contro Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie du Havre e directeur régional de la Sécurité sociale de Rouen.

The applicant presented another power of attorney which he had signed at the hearing, but the court did not admit it for the numbers of the investigation and the court’s case-files had not been marked

He submits that the Court has considered his guilt as a "thesis" and rejected all counter-submissions ("antitheses").

By way of reasoning the Court of Appeal stated that the trial court’s decision had contained no explanation as to why the court believed the victim and not the defendants.

In October 2003, on the basis of the Court’s judgment, and relying on the Turkish Constitution, the applicant applied to the State Security Court to have his trial reopened.

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE SOCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur les pourvois n° F 96-42.019 au n° S 96-42.029 formés par : 1°/ Mme Dominique H..., demeurant ...,

LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice, à PARIS, le dix février mil neuf cent quatre vingt douze, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le rapport de M.