search

… 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. …

… The applicant relied on 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 .” Admissibility 17. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic legal remedies for his complaint. …

… The applicant complained that the Constitutional Court had not been , owing to the participation of Judge R.M. He submitted that, following Judge R.M.’s appointment to that court, his office had been “taken over” by lawyers from the firm representing two of the applicant’s co‑defendants in the proceedings in question. Furthermore, Judge R.M.’s son had been employed as a trainee lawyer at that firm. …

… European Union The Charter 5 Article 47 of the Charter, entitled ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’, provides: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and previously by . …

… Legal context International 3 Article 6 ECHR, entitled ‘Right to a fair trial’, provides: ‘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 . … 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. …

… and previously by . 31. …

… In addition, the Court recognises that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU also requires the existence of a ‘previously by ’, in view of the inextricable links that exist between access to such a and the guarantees of judicial and judicial . (10) 40. …

… According to the referring court, those factors undermine the right to an and previously by , and also the parties’ right to have their case heard within a reasonable time, because of a caseload that is distributed unevenly. 58. …

… He also complained that Judge S, hearing his appeal, had not been and about the length of the proceedings, which he considered contrary to that provided in Article 6 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” Admissibility The parties’ submissions (a) The Government 82. …

… The applicant complained of a legislative intervention by the State with the administration of justice, contrary to the rule of , which had not been cured by means of proceedings no. 37/2020, to the detriment of his civil rights. …

… Article 6, as far as relevant, 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 .” 72. The Government contested those arguments. Admissibility Victim status and applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 73. …

… In the case of Reczkowicz (cited above) the Court has previously found that the DCSC failed to satisfy the requirements of an “ and by ” as prescribed in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. …

… The Court further considers that the requisite procedural safeguards were not put in place to prevent arbitrary application of the relevant substantive . As above, the decision on the lifting of the applicant’s immunity and her suspension was taken by the DCSC, which failed to meet the requirements of an “ and by ” (see paragraphs 82-84 above, and compare Tuleya, cited above, § 540). 188. …

… On this basis, the Court accepted that at last instance Judge Tuleya received a hearing before an “ and by ”, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, notably due to lack of doubts as to the validity of the appointments of the members of the CPL panel concerned (ibid., § 261). …

… It follows from the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and previously by . The Court has stressed that the guarantees of an and previously by represent the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial. (25) 35. …

… 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 . …

… Moreover, it creates a dangerous precedent for excessive centralisation of the case- and the forced standardisation of the interpretation of the in certain categories of disputes. Mechanisms to ensure the consistency of case- cannot disregard the requirement of access to an and by . 17. Fourth, the fact that there are a large number of cases pending before the courts should not be confused with the existence of divergent case-law. …