search

… Article 6, in so far as relevant, reads: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 106. The Court has found above that the applicant’s extradition to China would result in a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 84 above). …

… Consequently, having regard to the nature of the extradition proceedings, whose aim is to ensure that the prosecution of the applicant would be pursued in another State, and the unjustified delays in the Polish proceedings, the Court finds that the applicant’s detention was not “” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention and that there has therefore been a violation of that provision. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 105. …

… The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in to the facts of any case before it (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005), considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 7. …

… In other words, the “” and “” requirements/guarantees are intrinsic and inseparable qualities related to the very existence of “a by ”. It is impossible to examine the qualities of a that does not exist, just as it is impossible to examine the qualities of a non‑existent person or building. Therefore, any hope that a is and will hinge on the fact that it is a by in the first place. …

… Subsequently, the Court 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-law between that specific right and the guarantees of “” and “”. …

… 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 and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 62. …

… They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 ““In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 7. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. …

… THE JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6. The applicants complained of the lack of of the in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. …

… They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 ““In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 7. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. …

… THE JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6. The applicants complained of the lack of of the in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility The parties’ submissions (a) The Government 119. The Government argued that KTB had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. …

… The applicant further complained that the rejection of the additional grounds of appeal on points of violated his right to a fair trial as provided for in Article 6 of the Convention, which in relevant parts reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 65. …

… ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE rejection OF THE ADDITIONAL GrOUNDS OF APPEAL ON POINTS OF 64. …

… The applicant invoked Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “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: (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence ...” Admissibility 15. …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” ... 93. Having regard to the facts of the case and its findings under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the investigation in issue (see paragraphs 65 to 72 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of this remaining complaint. …

… First and foremost, the task of the Court is to determine the scope of the applicant’s complaint concerning the right to an “ and by ”. 115. …

… These two concepts also interact with that of a “ by ” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 218 et seq., §§ 231 et seq., and also § 295, 1 December 2020). (a) Scope of the applicant’s complaint as regards the right to an “ and by ” 114. …

… The right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 requires that a case be heard by an “ and by ”. The concepts of “” and “” are closely linked and, depending on the circumstances, may require joint examination (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 150 and 152; see also, as regards their close interrelationship, §§ 153-56; and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 61-64, 25 September 2018). …