search

… establish an and . …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 40.  The applicant complained that he had not had an and , as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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 . ...” 41.   …

… In particular, he complained of bias in respect of several judges and of a violation of his constitutional right to a judge before the Federal Court of Justice and the Federal Constitutional Court. …

… 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: ... …

… All of the applicants complained that the proceedings before the Arbitration Committee had not met the requirements of and under 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 . ...” 144.   …

… The Court must first ascertain whether the Arbitration Committee could be regarded as an “ and by ” within the meaning of that Article and the principles laid down in paragraphs above, at the time when it adjudicated the applicants’ respective cases (see Mutu and Pechstein, cited above, § 148). 202.   …

… At the time when it adjudicated the applicants’ respective cases, by the combined effect of the primary and secondary legislation, the Arbitration Committee had the appearance of a “ by ” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, and this point was not in fact expressly disputed by the applicants. It remains to be ascertained whether it could be regarded as “” and “” within the meaning of that provision. 205.   …

… THIRD SECTION CASE OF KHODORKOVSKIY AND LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2) (Applications nos. 51111/07 and 42757/07) JUDGMENT Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (c) and (d) • Fair hearing • Defence through legal assistance • Confinement in glass cabin negatively impacting the exercise of an accused’s right to participate effectively in proceedings • Systematic perusal by trial judge of written communications between the accused and their lawyers • Adversarial trial • Equality of arms • Omission to hear in …

… 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: ... …

… This, in the applicant’s view, amounted to a breach of the Convention requirement for his case to be determined by an “ ”, in breach of 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 .” A.   …

… They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, is no 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 .” 33.  The Government contested that argument. They considered that the proceedings against the applicants had been in compliance with the guarantees set out in Article 6 of the Convention. …

… It therefore considers that the applicants’ arrest and detention were not “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by ”. 31.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 32.  The applicants complained that the District Court which had considered their cases had not been and the proceedings against them had been unfair. …

… 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: ... …

… The applicants complained that the tribunal which had examined their cases had not been . Mr Kuratov (application no. 24377/15) also alleged that he had not had sufficient time to prepare his defence. Mr Tyutya (application no. 59025/16) complained that the same judge had considered both cases against him. Mr Sokolov (application no. 61429/16) claimed that he had been unable to question the police officers who had prepared an administrative case against him. …

… 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 . …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair...hearing...by an and by .” 52.  The Government contested that argument. Admissibility The parties’ submissions 53.   …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 51.  The applicant complained that the Board which had found her “guilty of all charges” had not been and that the Commissioner of Police had put pressure on the Public Service Commission in connection with the appropriate punishment to be handed out, and thus could not be considered as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.   …