Has there been a breach of the principle of legal certainty in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the divergent case-law of the Court of Cassation in respect of the notion of “third party

(“HDP”), a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party, in the province of Istanbul.

The applicant is a political party.

Neither party was present at the appeal hearing. 14.     On 4 August 2000 the applicant received a summons for the hearing before the Regional Court that had taken place on 31 July 2000.

    Act of 2 July 1931 19.

of proceedings before joining the proceedings as a civil party.

  50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) was founded on 19 October 1992.

  During the investigation, the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.

On 23 July 2012, after a criminal investigation for fraud and money laundering had been opened against the third party, the Department for Investigation of Terrorism and Organised Crime Offences ( DIICOT

2014 and 15 July 2014 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The first applicant, framipek s.r.o. is a limited liability company with its registered office in Šenkvice.

On 1 July 1997 the latter rejected the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

  The 24 July 2001 edition of Flux featured an article about the impact of the amendment.

2007] Facts : In the parliamentary elections of November 2002 the applicants stood as candidates for the political party DEHAP (People's Democratic Party) in an electoral constituency formed from a single

on the ground that one of its aims was anti-constitutional: violation   Facts : In July 2000 the preparatory committee of a political party (the Liberal Party – “the PL”), of which the applicant

However, it was only after sixteen days, on 9   July 2008, that the Court of Appeal transmitted the refusal to the applicant.

At the hearing held before the Gdynia District Court on 13 July 1995 J.S. was present but the petitioner H.K. and the party K.K. were absent.

    By a decision of 10 July 2001, the Chamber declared the application partly admissible. 6.

This decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2006. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. 10 .

It also challenged the acceptance of the Evcaf Administration as a third party in the proceedings.