search

… , or certain of them, have in fact been , it remains, in any event, in order to ensure the possibility of an effective judicial remedy in respect of a decision to transfer a judge without consent, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, necessary for an and by to be able, in accordance with a procedure that fully safeguards the rights enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, to review the validity of that decision and that of …

… Concluding his remarks, the Commissioner reiterated that the NCJ had previously been found by the Court, in the case of Reczkowicz (cited above), to lack sufficient and submitted, therefore, that a procedure concerning a judge’s transfer that involved the NCJ would fail to meet the requirements of the Convention unless there was a right of appeal against its decisions to an and by . (ii) Judges for Judges Foundation and Professor L. …

… Furthermore, the Court would refer to the general principles on the requirements of an “ and ” at the stages of the determination and review of a case, as described in Denisov v. Ukraine [GC] (no. 76639/11, §§ 60‑65, 25 September 2018), and with regard to the concept of a “tribunal by ”, Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC] (no. 26374/18, §§ 218-34, 1 December 2020). 112. …

… Compliance with the principle of “an and by ` (a) The parties’ submissions (i) The applicant 71. The applicant referred to a Constitutional Court decision (see paragraph 34 above) and argued that Sports Arbitration Board was an administrative body and did not qualify as a under domestic law. She claimed that it did not have full jurisdiction to determine a dispute on the basis of legal rules. …

… 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 ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 49. The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings before the Sports Arbitration Board. …

… The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention does not preclude the of arbitral . However, when arbitration is compulsory, in the sense of being required by and parties having no option but to refer their dispute to an arbitral , as was the case here, the arbitral must afford the safeguards secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ali Rıza and Others, cited above, §§ 173-174 with further references and more recently, Semenya v. …

… They therefore considered that the structural deficiencies identified by the Court in Ali Rıza and Others (cited above) had been remedied and that the applicant’s case had been heard by an and . (c) The Court’s assessment 37. The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention does not preclude the of arbitral . …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides 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 Government argued that the impugned proceedings before the TFF concerned a dispute arising out of the administration of football, to which Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not apply. 25. …

… In Ali Rıza and Others (cited above) the Court found that the Arbitration Committee did not fulfil the requirements of an and tribunal. …

… Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 110-26, 20 March 2018, and Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 19750/13, § 90, 1 June 2023) considers it appropriate to examine the above complaints solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “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 .” …

… The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “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 .” Inability to appeal against an SJC decision following remittal Admissibility 68. The Government did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of this complaint. 69. …

… The fact that the Constitutional Court had found the SJC not to constitute a “court” under domestic law (see paragraph 44 above) did not mean that it was not a “” within the autonomous meaning of the Convention. Furthermore, the SJC was and . The Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court were its ex officio members. …

… In their view, it was a “” in full compliance with the institutional requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The SJC had the exclusive competence to appoint and dismiss judges, lay judges and court presidents, in proceedings regulated by which ensured the protection of a judge’s rights and interests, including the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. …

… The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that (i) her case had not been examined by “an and by ”; (ii) she had been deprived of an opportunity to use procedural guarantees of a fair hearing; and (iii) the principle of legal certainty had not been observed in her case. 24. …

… In the determination of his civil rights ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . ...” The parties’ arguments The applicant 87. …

… 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 …