search

… 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. …

… 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.” 82. This conclusion was the starting point for its assessment of whether the Disciplinary Chamber could be considered an “ and by ”: “61. …

… The applicant, who is a barrister, complained that the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court that dealt with her case had not been an and “ by ” and alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2. The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Gdynia. Having been granted legal aid, she was represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warszawa. 3. …

… In particular, for the purpose of this Recommendation, lawyers’ rights include, inter alia: - the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . This does not preclude lawyers from asking that the hearing be heard in camera.” The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 135. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Dunja Mijatović carried out a visit to Poland from 11 to 15 March 2019. …

… Secondly, they complained that in 2018, when dealing with the issue of their attempted transfer to other judicial posts, the HCJ failed to act as an “ and ”. 38. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” …

… 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. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... …

… with regard to an and previously by , within the meaning of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, since a legal prohibition relating to acts which are impossible would be wholly without normative merit. 159 According to the Republic of Poland, the right to an and previously by , guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter, does not include the right for an individual to seek to challenge …

… previously by . 157 Finally, the Commission maintains that the fact that the act of appointment to the post of judge in Poland may be systemic in nature and, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, is not open to challenge cannot justify the exclusion of judicial review aimed at verifying compliance with the requirement of EU relating to an and previously by in order to guarantee the fundamental right …

… application of Article 42a(1) and (2) and of Article 55(4) of the amended relating to the ordinary courts, of Article 26(3) and Article 29(2) and (3) of the amended on the Supreme Court, of Article 5(1a) and (1b) of the amended relating to the administrative courts and of Article 8 of the amending , in so far as they prohibit national courts from verifying compliance with the EU requirements relating to an and previously by , within the …

… 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 .” The parties’ submissions 29. …

… The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to examine his additional claim of 16 February 2009, that they had disregarded his main argument in support of his claim for the reimbursement of his expenses for service charges and that his right to have his case considered by a by had been breached. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 27. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 31.  The applicant complained that the judgments in her pension case had not been “pronounced publicly”, as required by 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 and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . …

… The applicant complained that, by reason of the professional links between N.I. and ENEL, parent entity of ENELPOWER, the arbitrator N.I. had lacked and objective . This had impinged upon its fair trial rights, enshrined 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 ... by an and by .” …