search

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 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 . ...” A.  Admissibility 13.  The Court notes that the complaint under Article 6 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. …

… THE I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  The applicant company complained that the quashing of the final judgment given by the Bălţi Court of Appeal on 8 December 2009 had been unjust and had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. …

… It 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 within a reasonable time by an and by .” A.  Admissibility 1.  The parties’ submissions 54.   …

… The applicant company complained that the domestic courts which had dealt with its case had lacked and that the proceedings concerning the recognition of its claims in the bankruptcy proceedings against Blasco had been unreasonably lengthy. …

… Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by ... ...” Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 6 “1.  In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by an and by ... ...” Article 8 “1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private life ... ...” …

… He 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 or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . ...” A.  Admissibility 15.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. …

… The applicant complained that the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision to quash the judgments of the lower courts in his favour, following an appeal on points of lodged by the adverse party out of the legal time‑limit, had breached his right to a fair trial. …

… The applicant also argued that his conviction by the Supreme Court of Justice had not been based on evidence and that the judges had lacked and . Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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.  Admissibility 24.   …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time 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.  Length of the proceedings 1.   …

… THE 14.  The applicant company complained that the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision of 8 October 2014 had breached its right to a fair trial as provided in Article 6 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, 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 ...” 15.   …

… The applicants complained that the which had examined their cases had not been in contravention of Article 6 of the Convention, which, insofar 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 .” 8.  The Government contested that argument. …

… THE I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 7.   …

… 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: ... …

… 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[.]” 26.   …

… THE I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 25.  The applicant complained that the trial judge, R., had not been , that the trial court had relied on the statements of five witnesses given earlier in the course of the investigation without questioning them in person, and that the appellate court had refused to accept his twelve additional statements of appeal. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.   …