search

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in his favour. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 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 .” 7. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by . …

… Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and previously by . ...” Case-law of the CJEU Judgment of 27 February 2018 in Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117 148. …

… He alleged that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was unconstitutional, in so far as (1) the term "" used in that provision included the Constitutional Court, (2) it allowed the proceedings before that court to be covered by the requirements ensuing from Article 6 of the Convention, and (3) it encompassed the review by the Court of the legality of the election of Constitutional Court judges in order to determine whether that court was an and by …

… Article 6 § 1, first sentence, of the [Convention] in so far as it encompasses the review by the European Court of Human Rights of the legality of the process of election of Constitutional Court judges in order to determine whether the Constitutional Court is an and by , is incompatible with Article 2, Article 8 § 1, Article 89 § 1 (3) and Article 194 § 1 of the Constitution.” 99. …

… and that proceedings before the competent national court (Supreme Administrative Court) had not been concluded before the delivery of the appointment letter – is not an and previously by within the meaning of EU law?” …

… The applicant company had its cassation appeal (skarga kasacyjna) examined by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in a panel composed of three judges newly appointed through the procedure involving the National Council of the Judiciary (the “NCJ”) as in 2018. It complained that the Civil Chamber that had dealt with its case had not been an “ and by ” and alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2. …

… On the basis of an overall assessment of the above circumstances, the Supreme Court concludes that, as of this day, the National Council of the Judiciary does not provide sufficient guarantees of from the legislative and executive authorities in the judicial appointment procedure.” 121. This conclusion was the starting point for its assessment of whether the Disciplinary Chamber could be considered an “ and by ”: “61. …

… 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 ...” 6. The Government contested that argument. Admissibility 7. 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 8. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 18. The applicant complained that one of the Constitutional Court’s judges who had ruled on her constitutional complaint had not been . She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . ...” Admissibility 19. …

… and that proceedings before the competent national court (Supreme Administrative Court) had not been concluded before the delivery of the appointment letter – is not an and previously by within the meaning of EU law?” …

… On the basis of an overall assessment of the above circumstances, the Supreme Court concludes that, as of this day, the National Council of the Judiciary does not provide sufficient guarantees of from the legislative and executive authorities in the judicial appointment procedure.” 108. This conclusion was the starting point for its assessment of whether the Disciplinary Chamber could be considered an “ and by ”: “61. …

… They complained that the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court, which examined their appeals against the resolutions of the NCJ, had not been an “ and by ”. They alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2. The applicants were born in 1979 and 1966 respectively and live in Siemianowice Śląskie and Lublin. They were represented by Ms S. Gregorczyk‑Abram and Ms M. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 24. The applicant complained that his right of access to a court had been breached because he could not have his challenge against the parliamentary decision terminating his service as a member and President of the CSA examined on the merits by an and by . …

… He alleged in particular that his challenge against a parliamentary decision terminating his service as a member and president of a central public authority, which had had negative effects of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature for him, had not been examined on the merits by an and by . THE FACTS 2. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr O.M. Țibuleac, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 3. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by ... 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... …

… and that proceedings before the competent national court [the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court)] had not been concluded before the delivery of the appointment letter - is not an and previously by within the meaning of EU law?’ …

… and functioning of the judicial system concerned, and (ii) the integrity of the outcome of that procedure is undermined, giving rise to reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the and of the judge concerned, with the result that that order may not be regarded as being made by an and previously by , within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU. …

… and functioning of the judicial system concerned, and (ii) the integrity of the outcome of that procedure is undermined, giving rise to reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the and of the judge concerned, with the result that that order may not be regarded as being made by an and previously by , within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU. …