search

… THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 20. The applicant complained of a number of violations of Article 6 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant: “1. 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 is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and previously by . Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. …’ 6 The Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) state that the first paragraph of Article 47 thereof is based on Article 13 of the ECHR. …

… Legal context International 3 Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), provides: ‘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 …’. 4 Under Article 41 of the ECHR: ‘If the Court finds that there has been …

… European Union The Charter 5 Title VI of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), headed ‘Justice’, includes Article 47, entitled ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’, which states: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . ...” Furthermore, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he complained, in essence, about his personal liability for a debt of L.E. That Article provides: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. …

… THE 57. The applicant complained that the failure to serve on him personally the decisions rendered in the strike-off proceedings against company L.E. had amounted to a violation of his right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. …

… THE I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (d) OF THE CONVENTION 48.  Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention read 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 . ... 3.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” 20. The Government contested the applicants’ arguments. A. Admissibility 21. The Government did not contest that Article 6 applies in the applicant’s situation. The Court considers, in the light of its case-law, that this provision is applicable in the present case (see Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 90, ECHR 2012, Ternovskis v. …

… They relied on Article 6 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 .” A. Admissibility 29. The Government submitted that Article 6 of the Convention was not applicable to the impugned proceedings, because the applicants had been charged with an administrative rather than a criminal offence. …

… The applicants complain that the administrative proceedings in their cases fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing, including the principles of equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, and of the , and also that they had been prevented from calling and examining key witnesses. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . ...” 69. On 8 April 2013 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration stating that they were prepared to acknowledge a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings in which she had been involved. They also offered to pay her EUR 1,080 as just satisfaction. …

… That, in the Court’s view, is sufficient to enable it to conclude that the civil proceedings brought about the result desired by Article 3 of the Convention – and holding accountable those responsible in an effective manner. 67. There has accordingly been no violation of this provision. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 68. …

… 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. …

… The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in to the facts of the case (see Wetjen and Others v. Germany, nos. 68125/14 and 72204/14, § 44, 22 March 2018, with further references), finds it appropriate to examine this complaint solely under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 103. The Government contested those arguments. …

… They stated that the applicant company’s case had been assessed by means of an oral hearing by an and and that it had had the opportunity to submit its arguments concerning the search-and-seizure warrant and its execution, as well as the tax-assessment report. The Tax Court had examined the applicant company’s submissions and delivered a judgment partially in its favour. …

… 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 (...)”. 24. The Government contested that argument. A. Admissibility 1. Lack of victim status of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants 25. …

… The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Fourth Section of the Audiencia Nacional lacked , as this Section had previously been declared biased against the first applicant by the Supreme Court in the framework of previous criminal proceedings where the first applicant was finally acquitted of all charges. Article 6 § 1 which reads as follows in its relevant part: “1. …