search

… The first applicant complained that her case had been allocated to Judge P. unlawfully, in breach of her right to be heard by an and by , as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 111. …

… The Court notes that, in the present case, the complaints relating to the requirements of the “ by ” and “ and ” stem from the same underlying problem – that is, the irregularities in the assignment of the applicants’ case to Judge P. As the Court has found above, the irregularities in question were of such gravity that they undermined the very essence of the right to be tried by a in accordance with the . …

… I agree with all points of the operative provisions of the judgment apart from point 3, namely, that having found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the first applicant’s right to be heard by a by , there was no need to examine her remaining complaints under that provision relating to the and of the same (see also the last but one sentence of paragraph 128 of the judgment, to which point 3 corresponds …

… Article 42 § 2 “In order to protect their constitutional and legal rights, freedoms and interests, or when an accusation has been made against them, everyone has the right to a fair and public trial, within a reasonable time, by an and by .” Article 142 § 3 “State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions.” The Civil Code 40. …

… The may provide for expropriations or limitations in the exercise of a property right only in the public interest. 4. Expropriations, or limitations of a property right that are equivalent to expropriation, are permitted only in return for fair compensation.” …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by . …

… He alleged, in particular, that: (i) the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court which had examined his case had not been an “ and by ”, given that one of the judges had been appointed to the Supreme Court in violation of the statutory eligibility criteria; (ii) the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court had not been an “ and by ” also in view of the fact that the same judge had previously served as Prosecutor …

… The present case concerns the applicant’s allegation that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court which examined his case was not an “ and by ”. It also concerns his conviction by the Supreme Court by means of written proceedings following his acquittals by the lower courts, the alleged lack of reasons in the relevant judgment and his allegation that there was an ulterior motive behind his prosecution. …

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention to proceedings concerning recognition of an arbitral award (a) The parties’ submissions (i) The Government 73. …

… The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018), finds it appropriate to limit the scope of its examination to the domestic proceedings in which the substance of the applicant company’s grievances was dealt with. …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by ...” Admissibility 42. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a) The applicant 43. …

… The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair trial on account of the rejection by the Supreme Administrative Court of his arguments supporting the admissibility of his appeal on points of and that this rejection had not been properly reasoned. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… on the allocation of cases and the appointment and modification of the formations of a court, does not constitute an and previously by which ensures effective legal protection? …

… cited). 63 In the second place, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU also requires the existence of a ‘previously by ’ bearing in mind the inextricable links that exist between access to such a and the guarantees of judicial and judicial (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 July 2024, Hann-Invest and Others, C-554/21, C-622/21 and C-727/21, EU:C:2024:594, paragraph 55 and the case- cited). 64 Furthermore, the reference to a ‘ …

… and previously by ’ could not be the subject of judicial review and a possible penalty in the event of non-compliance, otherwise those rules could be disregarded without that entailing any consequence. …

… K. and Others ( of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982, paragraphs 116 to 118 and the case- cited). 78 On the one hand, although under Article 6(1) ECHR ‘everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by ’, that right is not absolute and may be subject to legitimate restrictions (ECtHR, 14 December 2006, Markovic and Others v. …

… the CFSP, a context which does not fall within the scope of the provisions of the Treaties in respect of which Article 24 TEU and Article 275 TFEU limit the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 77 Second, the Court must admittedly ensure that the interpretation which it gives to Article 47 of the Charter, the first and second paragraphs of which correspond to Article 6(1) and Article 13 ECHR, safeguards a level of protection which does not fall below the level of protection …

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 33. …

… The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court’s had been compromised because the daughter of the respondent company’s lawyer was the judicial assistant of one of the judges, L.M., on the panel which had examined their cases and rejected them as inadmissible. …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” Admissibility Access to the Constitutional Court and right to a reasoned judgment (a) The parties’ arguments 34. …

… The applicant Government submitted that those “judges” could not be considered and . Nor could any “court” or “” over which they presided be considered to be a competent judicial authority by . Their appointment was an inducement to former Ukrainian officials to cooperate (or collaborate) with the Russian Federation. 61. …