search

… 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.   …

… THE I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 75.  The applicant raised multiple complaints under Article 6 § 1. The relevant Article reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.  In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair...hearing...by an and by .” A.  Civil proceedings before the Civil Court 1.  The parties’ submissions 76.   …

… The applicant company complained that the trial judge of the Kherson Suvorovsky District Court, who had examined the case concerning Article A at first instance, was not and that that court had not been a “ by ” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of which the relevant part reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by …

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, 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 61.  It was the Government’s position that Article 6 was not applicable to the present case under either its civil or criminal head. …

… The first applicant also argued that the trial courts had not been “ by ” and thus had no jurisdiction in her case. The applicants 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 .” 22. …

… It follows that a violation of this principle, like the principles under the same provision that a shall be and , does not require a separate examination of whether the breach of the principle that a be by rendered a trial unfair. …

… In this regard, the Court emphasises that the requirement that a be by is closely connected to the other general requirements of Article 6 § 1, on the and of the judiciary, both also being an integral part of the fundamental principle of the rule of in a democratic society. …

… Therefore, his criminal charge had not been determined by a “ by ” as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the first sentence 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 .” 73. The Government contested this argument. A. Admissibility 74. …

… 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: ... (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. Admissibility 1. …

… Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, that there had been numerous procedural shortcomings in the manner the forensic evidence had been obtained and examined, that the courts failed to examine the video evidence, refused to examine witnesses on the applicant’s behalf and arbitrarily applied domestic criminal . The relevant parts of Article 6 of the Convention read as follows: “1. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by .” 116. The Government argued that the process of examining the applicant was entirely removed from any criminal investigation. …

… 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: ... …

… an and by . …’ European Union law 5 Recital 16 of Directive 2016/343 is worded as follows: ‘The presumption of innocence would be violated if public statements made by public authorities, or judicial decisions other than those on guilt, referred to a suspect or an accused person as being guilty, for as long as that person has not been proved guilty according to law. …

… Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not . …’ 4 Article 6 of the Convention, entitled ‘Right to a fair trial’, states in paragraph 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 …