search

… 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. …

… 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 ... by an and by . …

… The applicant alleged a violation of her right to an and with full jurisdiction and of her right to a public hearing. She further alleged that, following the reclassification of the facts by the CSM, she had not been informed in detail of the accusation against her and had therefore not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence. She relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in its relevant parts provides: “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 . …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by . Judgment shall be pronounced publicly...” A. Admissibility 1. As regards the compatibility of the applicant’s complaint ratione materiae 22. …

… RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND PRACTICE 20. The relevant domestic and practice is set out in the Milojević case (see Milojević, cited above, §§ 31-37). THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 21. The applicant complained that the decisions of the domestic authorities in civil proceedings regarding his dismissal were arbitrary and lacked sufficient reasons. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… They relied on 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 ... hearing ... by an and by .” 92. The Government contested that argument. Admissibility 93. The Government objected that the available domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 94. …

… THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 17. The applicant complained of the respondent State’s failure to enforce the final court judgment rendered in his favour. The case falls to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article 6 § 1 “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 .” A. …

… She 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 .” A. Admissibility 1. The parties’ submissions 21. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies. …

… THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 20. The applicant complained that her case before the Supreme Court had not been examined fairly by an , having regard to the presence on the selection panel of a judge whose son had been a prosecutor in her case. …

… The applicants complained that the administrative proceedings in their cases had fallen short of guarantees of a fair hearing, in particular, the principles of equality of arms, and of the . They 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 .” A. …

… Even though that finding related to a discretionary executive power rather than to private- bodies, a completely private is no more “ by ” than a set up by executive decree, even where there is less doubt about the and of the arbitral . 24. Moreover, the jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione loci of tribunals must also be by (see the Commission Report of 12 October 1978 concerning the case of Zand v. …

… We are of the view, first, that the structure and composition of the CAS do not meet the requirements of and prescribed in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and, secondly, that it is uncertain whether the CAS is a “ by ”. 3. …

… The Court must therefore ascertain whether the CAS could be regarded as an “ and by ” within the meaning of that Article and the principles laid down in paragraphs 138 to 144 above, at the time when it adjudicated the applicants’ respective cases. 149. …