search

… Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court considers that these complaints fell to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, 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.  Admissibility 52.   …

… Being the master of the characterisation to be given in to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v.  …

… As to the applicant’s argument that he was unable to have his case, including his civil claims, reviewed by an and by because the pre-trial judge lacked the competences and functions of a proper court (see paragraph 115 above), the Court firstly notes that the guarantees set out in Article 6 under its criminal limb were not applicable in the circumstances of the applicant’s case. …

… The applicant was of the opinion that in spite of his best efforts, he had been unable to have his case – including his civil claims, which had been joined to the criminal proceedings – reviewed by an and by . In accordance with the relevant procedural rules, a pre-trial judge was merely a specialised body of the State which performed judicial activities and therefore lacked the competence and functions of a proper court. …

… That is why in any legal system in which fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution and the , it is incumbent on the aggrieved individual to test the extent of that protection and allow the domestic courts to apply those rights and, where appropriate, develop them in exercising their power of interpretation (see Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 101, 9 July 2015). 147.   …

… They further maintained that the Supreme Court did not remedy the procedural violations that had occurred before the District Court, and could not, given the terms of domestic , have done so. 62. Article 6 of the Convention 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 and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . …

… It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of 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 The parties’ submissions (a)   The Government 104.   …

… The applicant association also complained that the Constitutional Court had lacked , having regard to the fact that Judge D.Š. had been included on the panel which had decided on its constitutional complaint (see paragraphs 24 and 53 above). …

… 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.   …

… 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.   …

… ” • Domestic regulating judicial appointment process an inherent element of concept of “” of court or “by ” • “ by ” also meaning “ in accordance with the ” • Examination in light of common purpose shared with guarantees of “” and “”: that of upholding fundamental principles of rule of and separation of powers • Application of three-step test in determining whether irregularities in a judicial appointment …

… It noted secondly that, contrary to the argument of the respondent Government, a violation of the principle that a “” be by , as of the closely related principles under the same provision that a “” be and , did not require a separate examination as to whether the breach of that principle had had the effect of rendering a trial unfair. …

… The first sentence 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 .” The Chamber judgment 155. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . ... 3.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (d)  to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him ...” A. …

… The applicant complained that the tribunal in his criminal case had not been independent and impartial because: (1) four of the twelve jurors in his case had had security clearance; (2) some jurors had withheld certain information which could have cast doubt on their ; and (3) the judge who had presided over the appeal hearing, Judge K., had been personally biased against him. 82.  The applicant also complained that he had not had a fair trial. …

… It stated that unless the case was limited to a single event, person or group, the examination by a newly court or a recently appointed judge of a case arising prior to the or appointment in question did not constitute an infringement of the right to a lawfully court. THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO AN AND BY UNDER ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 34.   …

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A. The parties’ submissions The Government 35.   …

… FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the right to a by admissible; Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the objective and of the Istanbul 8th Assize Court admissible; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application; Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the right to a by ; Holds that there …

… The applicants complained that the administrative proceedings in their cases had fallen short of the guarantees of a fair hearing, in particular the principles of equality of arms and and of the . They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” …