search

… 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 .” …

… It observed that the relevant domestic on judicial appointments should be couched in unequivocal terms, to the extent possible, so as not to allow arbitrary interferences in the appointment process (ibid., §§ 229-230). 247.  Subsequently, the Court examined the interaction between the requirement that there be a “ by ” and the conditions of and . …

… It noted that although the right to a “ by ” was a stand‑alone right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, a very close interrelationship had been formulated in the Court’s case- between that specific right and the guarantees of “” and “”. The institutional requirements of Article 6 § 1 shared the common purpose of upholding the fundamental principles of the rule of and the separation of powers. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility Applicability of Article 6 § 1 (a)   The Government’s submissions 176.  The Government disputed the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. 177.   …

… OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL TANCHEV delivered on 6 May 2021(1) Case C-791/19 European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - National measures a disciplinary regime for judges - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Rule of - Judicial - Definition of disciplinary offences - Examination by an and by - Reasonable time - Rights of the defence - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter …

… In that connection, it should be recognised that the right to a court by is directly connected to judicial , (38) and that it is also one of the requirements that must be met for the purposes of constituting a ‘court or ’ within the meaning of Union law under Article 267 TFEU. (39) It is apparent from the case-law that the Court interprets the requirement of judicial independence on the basis of Article 267 TFEU in the light of that set out in the second subparagraph …

… K. and Others, (37) there is a ‘constitutional passerelle’ between the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter and the case- concerning them inevitably intersects, given that those provisions share common legal sources. Thus, the rights covered by each are bound to overlap, and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU includes, but is not limited to, the obligation to have and courts. 70. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  The applicant complained that the Pula County Court had not been because of the participation of Judge M.T.S. on the appeal bench. He 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 13.   …

… On 14 July 2016 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint finding, inter alia, that: “... the circumstances detailed by the applicant in the present case do not in themselves raise doubt as to the of the second-instance judge.” RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 11.  Relevant domestic and practice have been summarised in Ramljak v. Croatia (no. 5856/13, §§ 13-21, 27 June 2017). …

… 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 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the convention 31.  The applicant complained that the District Court had refused to summon witnesses who could have testified that she had not taken part in the protest on 2 August 2004 at the Ministry of Health and Social Development. She relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.   …

… 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 54.  The Government submitted that Article 6 of the Convention was inapplicable in its civil aspect, as no “civil” rights were, in their view, at issue. …

… Lastly, 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 (cited above, §§ 60‑65; with regard to the concept of a “tribunal by “, see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 218-234, 1 December 2020). (b)   The approach to be adopted for the examination of the applicant’s complaints 92.   …

… Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the breach of the principle that a case must be examined by a by . (ii)     Other complaints under Article 6 106.  The applicant argued that the proceedings in the HSYK concerning the impugned disciplinary sanction had not been compatible with the requirements of and . He further complained about the lack of reasoning of the decisions given in his case. 107.   …

… The relevant parts of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention read as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility Applicability ratione materiae (a)   The parties’ submissions (i)      The Government’s submissions 41.   …

… At its meeting on 8 October 2015, held in Barcelona, the International Association of Judges issued a resolution where, among other issues, it considered that the arbitrary transfer of thousands of Turkish judges without their consent violated the international standards of judicial . THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 40.   …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 31.  The applicant complained that the Regional Court which convicted her of murder, with judge M. sitting on the bench, had not been . She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 32.   …