search

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by ...” Admissibility Applicability of Article 6 34. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 33. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been deprived of access to a court, as the Supreme Administrative Court had declared his action on the State’s liability as regards damage caused by an act of a judicial body inadmissible. Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… ., had lacked and . The relevant parts of Article 6 of the Convention read: Article 6 “1. 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: ... …

… It is apparent from the case- of the Court that such an appointment is not, in itself, such as to a breach of the right to an and by . 32 It should be noted that the Court has repeatedly pointed out that the procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which …

… The requests for a preliminary ruling do not reveal any particular concern as to the of the courts which delivered the final judicial decisions at issue in the main proceedings. The referring court’s doubts relate solely to the fact that the judges in question were appointed on the proposal of a body half of whose members were elected by the legislature. …

… He therefore alleged that the premature termination of his office had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads: “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 40. The Government disputed the admissibility of the complaint. …

… He also stated that the Constitutional Court lacked the authority to examine individual applications directed against a . Thus, he argued that he had had no effective remedy that he could use with a view to contesting the premature termination of his office, even though there had been no objective grounds for restricting his right of access to a court. …

… The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 37. The Government argued that the Constitutional Court had scrupulously examined the complaints that the applicant had subsequently raised before the Court and found them inadmissible for being manifestly ill‑founded. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 36. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial owing to a breach of the “natural judge” principle, since the court which had ultimately convicted him had not heard evidence from A.Y., who had only been heard by a court which had since been abolished. …

… Right to fair trial “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 120. In particular, the first applicant argued that he had been deprived of his liberty from 7 July 2015 until 29 December 2018 and convicted on 28 March 2016 following decisions taken by an “MRT court”, the unconstitutionality of which had rendered his detention and conviction “unlawful”. …

… No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by : (a) the detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (c) the arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so... …

… He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads in its relevant part as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility The parties’ arguments 31. …

… The applicant complained that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court which had examined his case was not an “ and by ”, given that one of the judges was a former Prosecutor General of Georgia who had been appointed to the Supreme Court in violation of a statutory eligibility criterion. …

… The case concerns the applicant’s allegation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which examined his case in domestic proceedings, was not an “ and by ”. THE FACTS 2. The applicant was born in 1975 and was detained in Tbilisi at the relevant time. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Baramidze and Mr B. Basilaia, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. 3. …

… SECOND SECTION CASE OF AL-HAWSAWI v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 6383/17) JUDGMENT Art 1 • Jurisdiction of respondent State for alleged Convention violations of a terrorist suspect’s right during the United States (US) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) extraordinary rendition operations • Responsibility engaged Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Inhuman treatment during the applicant’s extraordinary rendition to CIA • Respondent State’s complicity in the CIA High-Value Detainee Programme enabling …

… Specifically, it finds that the applicants did not benefit from a fair hearing by an and by . …

… Georgia and Russia applied • Lack of fair hearing by an and by • De facto Abkhaz courts could not qualify as a “tribunal established by law” • No real opportunity to organise defence and effectively benefit from the assistance of a lawyer throughout proceedings • Situation in respect of the legal and judicial system in Abkhazia could not be attributed to Georgia Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. …

… The Court has already held that the de facto Abkhaz courts could not qualify as a “ by ” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Mamasakhlisi and Others, cited above, § 440, with further references; see also paragraph 76 above). The Court sees no reason to find otherwise in the present case, in the absence of any pertinent information. …

… Merits The parties’ submissions (a) Whether the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs satisfies the standard of an “ and by ” 156. …

… ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE RIGHT TO AN AND BY 133. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his case had been examined by the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court, a body that did not constitute an “ and by ” within the meaning of this provision. …

… In view of the foregoing and for the same reasons as in Dolińska‑Ficek and Ozimek, the Court concludes in the present case that the CERPA which examined the extraordinary appeal in question was not an “ and by ”. (b) As regards the alleged lack of and on the part of Judge Stępkowski 177. …