search

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 43. The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable, either under its civil or its criminal limb. 44. …

… Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her case had not been heard by an and , as the President of the CC, who had been conducting the preliminary disciplinary investigation, had herself examined the recusal request submitted by the applicant against her and had subsequently brought disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. …

… The above‑mentioned councils were composed, exclusively, of judges of the CC, who were selected randomly each year by lot (Article 97 of No. 1756/1988). These judges were professional superior court judges who benefited from guarantees of institutional as provided for in Articles 87 and 88 of the Constitution, notably immovability, a guarantee which was reiterated in Article 53 of No. 1756/1988. …

… The Government submitted that the changes in the composition of the appellate court’s had been correctly performed in accordance with provision 3.1.12 of the Regulation. Furthermore, the HSC had examined the applicant’s complaint in that regard and had dismissed it as unsubstantiated. 94. The relevant principles concerning the requirement of an “ and by ” can be found in Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. …

… In the present case, the complaint relating to the requirements of the “ by ” and “ and ” stem from the same underlying issue, namely the procedure for the assignment of Judge K. to replace Judge Z. in the examination of the applicant’s case. 96. The Court reiterates that it is the role of the domestic courts to manage their proceedings with a view to ensuring the proper administration of justice. …

… Merits Alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing by an and by 92. The applicant complained that the assignment of Judge K. by the Deputy Head of the Court of Appeal to her case had been unlawful. In accordance with provision 3.1.13 of the applicable Regulation, a new judge in the applicant’s case had to be assigned via the system for automated (random) allocation of cases, which had not been done. 93. …

… previously by . 25 As a preliminary point, it should be observed that the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is worded as follows: ‘Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and previously by . …

… Iceland, CE:ECHR:2020:1201JUD002637418, §§ 231 and 233), that, while the right to a previously by constitutes an right, it is nevertheless inextricably linked to the guarantees of and set out in that provision. …

… , Getin Noble Bank, C-132/20, EU:C:2022:235, paragraph 121 and the case- cited). 68 In that context, the Court of Justice has held that a finding that there has been a breach of the requirement for a previously by and relating to the consequences of such a breach was subject to an overall assessment of a number of factors which, taken together, served to create in the minds of individuals reasonable doubt as to the and of the judges (see judgment …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION concerning the right to an 41. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of a violation of their right to an by the Constitutional Court. 42. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… 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 43. The Government submitted that the applicants had waived their right to an impartial tribunal by not requesting the recusal of the three judges of the Constitutional Court on the grounds of their previous involvement in the examination of their case before the Supreme Court. …

… In the judgment in Simpson, the Court found that an irregularity in the appointment of judges may, in and of itself, entail an infringement of the right to an effective remedy before an and previously by . …

… of the case, there are substantial grounds for believing that such deficiencies may lead to a real risk of infringement of the right to a fair trial - before an and previously by - of the person concerned. (37) 54. …

… In particular, the referring court expresses doubts as to whether the requirement of an and by is fulfilled by three members of the five-judge panel drawn by lot to consider the appellant’s application, in so far as they would be in a position very similar to that of the judge under review, because of the manner in which they were appointed. 14. …

… and in a procedure which satisfies the requirements of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, is not an , previously by and giving individuals effective access to justice in areas covered by EU law?’ …

… and previously by within the meaning of EU . 88 In the second place, in order to ensure the compatibility with the principles of and , and with the requirement of a previously by , of measures temporarily imposing on judges of a tribunal double assignment to their chamber of origin and to another chamber of that tribunal, care should be taken to ensure that such measures do not constitute a means of exercising …

… in advance by . …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 22. The applicant complained of various violations of Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide: “1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by ... ... 3. …

… Examining whether the CAS could be regarded as an ‘ and by ’ within the meaning of that provision, the ECtHR held that the CAS had the appearance of a by and that it was genuinely and (Mutu and Pechstein, cited above, §§ 149 and 159), which it has had cause recently to confirm (Platini v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 526/18, § 65, 11 February 2020). 5.1.3. …

… Default interest OPERATIVE PROVISIONS PARTLY CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE ŠIMÁČKOVÁ A “ by ”? An “ and ” ? Conclusion PARTLY DISSENTING JOINT OPINION OF JUDGES BOŠNJAK, ZÜND, ŠIMÁČKOVÁ ET DERENČINOVIĆ PARTLY DISSENTING JOINT OPINION OF JUDGES EICKE AND KUCSKO-STADLMAYER INTRODUCTION JURISDICTION MERITS OF THE ARTICLE 6 § 1 COMPLAINT POSTSCRIPT In the case of Semenya v. …

… That case- has since been confirmed many times ... In its judgment in Mutu and Pechstein (cited above), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was also called upon to rule on the and of the CAS. …

… This was contrary to the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 24. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 23. The applicants complained that their right to an had been violated on account of the participation of judge K.K. in the cassation proceedings against them. …

… The applicants complained that the Family Court in the civil proceedings (composed of Judge F) had not been due to the links of the judge with the opposing party’s lawyer, moreover, the judge had herself decided on the challenge lodged against her, contrary to that provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and …

… by .” …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 31. …