search

… He also alleged that he had not been tried by an and . Lastly, he argued that the length of the proceedings, taken as a whole, had been excessive. The relevant parts of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention 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. …

… Lastly, the Government submitted that the applicant had been tried by an and by , composed of pre-existing ordinary courts, whose judges enjoyed constitutional safeguards. They disputed that the disciplinary investigation opened against certain judges had had any impact on the or of the court, as that procedure was separate from the judicial examination of the case. …

… The general principles in the Court’s case- with regard, first, to the fairness of criminal proceedings and, second, to the requirement of an “ and ” were reiterated, in particular, in its judgments, to which it refers, in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC] (no. 15669/20, §§ 302-08, 26 September 2023) and Findlay v. the United Kingdom (25 February 1997, § 73, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I). 199. …

… The first, second, third and fifth applicants complained that they were denied a fair hearing by an and by , in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads in its relevant parts as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 93. …

… The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the decisions of the Russian “courts” to cancel the titles and claim the plots of land belonging to the first, fourth and fifth applicants had no basis in , were not , and created a continuing situation of “deprivation”. As regards the decisions of the Russian “courts” granting the second applicant’s claim against the third applicant, those had equally no basis in . 91. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by ... 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. ...” The parties’ submissions The Government 97. …

… In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at , everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, and by . ... ... 7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.” 2. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 118. …

… INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN A. International material 1. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 117. The relevant parts of Article 14 of the ICCPR read as follows: “1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and . …

… SECOND SECTION CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 31908/22) JUDGMENT Art 1 • Jurisdiction of respondent State for alleged Convention violations of a terrorist suspect’s right during the United States (“US”) Central Intelligence Agency extraordinary rendition operations • Responsibility capable of being engaged Art 35 § 2 (b) • Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Art 5 • Art 13 (+ Art 3) • Matter already submitted to another international procedure • Complaints substantially the same …

… The concept of a “ by ”, together with the concepts of “” and “” of a , forms part of the “institutional requirements” of Article 6 § 1. In the Court’s case-law, there is a very close interrelationship between these concepts (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 218, 1 December 2020). 88. …

… He relied on Article 6 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 .” A. Admissibility 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The Government 64. The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 was not engaged. They relied on the two-limbed test established in Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. …

… This dilemma is addressed by the UN Basic Principles on the of the Judiciary, which states that the principle of an review of decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings "may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings." (c) The Court’s assessment (i) Requirement of (α) Relevant general principles 87. …

… They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 91. …

… The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings pursued against them after the pardons had been contrary to the principles of legal certainty and the rule of . The decisions granting them pardons – which, at the time, had been final and irrevocable, and had conferred upon them the right not to be prosecuted – had been annulled pursuant to a retrospective specifically targeting them. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS ACCESS TO A COURT 46. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had had no access to a court to challenge the allegedly arbitrary decision of the transitional SCJ. Article 6 § 1, 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 .” A. …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A. Admissibility 42. The Government did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of the applicant’s complaints. 43. …

… Turning to the guarantees of and required of a “”, the Court observes that under the Constitution and the 2018 SJC Act, the SJC was to be composed of 15 members. …

… The applicant submitted that the SJC had not been an and ; that the proceedings before it had not been fair; and that it had wrongly applied the 2018 SJC Act, rather than the legislation in force at the time when the violation found by the Court in Gerovska Popčevska (cited above) had taken place. 57. …

… GRECO welcomed these reforms as significantly strengthening the transparency, and of the process (§§ 24-25). THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 25. The applicant complained that his right to an had been violated due to the participation of expert lay judge H.S.B. in the at first instance. …

… The principles in the Court’s case- concerning and are to be applied to lay judges in the same way as to professional judges (see Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, § 123, ECHR 2003-XII; Suren Antonyan v. Armenia, no. 20140/23, § 98, 23 January 2025, and the authorities cited therein). …

… He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in its relevant part reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . ...” Admissibility 26. 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. …