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 ... hearing ... by an and by .” A.  Admissibility 1. The parties’ submissions 40.  Relying on the principles developed in Vilho Eskelinen and Others v.  …

… Accordingly, in the present case the Court is called upon to examine firstly whether the requirements of an “independent and impartial ” were complied with by the HCJ. Secondly, if those requirements were not satisfied at that stage, it is necessary to determine whether the review of the case by the HAC was “sufficient” to remedy the shortcomings identified. Thirdly, it has to be whether the HAC itself complied with the requirements of and . …

… The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the principles of equality of arms, legal certainty and a “ by ” had been breached and that the requirement for decisions to contain proper reasons had not been complied with. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that there had been no effective remedy in his case. 139.   …

… FIRST SECTION CASE OF BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 September 2018 Referral to the Grand Chamber 04/02/2019 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.  Background B.  The secret surveillance schemes 1.  Government Communications Headquarters …

… Under Article 47 of the Charter, headed ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’: ‘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 previously by . …

… 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 . … 2. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. …’ B. EU law 1. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 5. …

… 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 ECHR, headed ‘Right to a fair trial’, provides: ‘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 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 and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . ... 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; ...” 28. …

… 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: ... …

… THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION WITH REGARD TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 13. The applicant complained that he and his lawyer were absent from the appeal hearing on 28 February 2006 and that the other parties’ appeal statements had not been served on him before that hearing. The applicant referred to Article 6 of the Convention, which, as far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 1. The parties’ submissions 29. The Government contested the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint on two counts. First of all, with reference to the decision in the case of Danawar and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 25843/07, 20 January 2015, they raised an objection as to inadmissibility based on non-compliance with the six-month time-limit. …

… The Government submitted that in the present case the dispute concerning the determination of the applicant’s civil rights had been dealt with by a which had been by , which was competent, and , and which adjudicated in the framework of fair proceedings. 44. They pointed out that the applicant’s clearances to access classified information had been withdrawn from him pursuant to section 59 (1) of the Law on access to classified information. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 28. The applicant complained of a violation of his right of access to a with full jurisdiction to determine the civil dispute to which he was a party. …

… 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: ... …

… 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 . ...” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 307.   …

… The Court considers that the applicant company’s complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A. Admissibility 109. …

… (ii) The guarantees of and 148. In accordance with the Court’s case-, in order to whether a can be considered “” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, regard must be had to, inter alia, the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of safeguards against outside pressures, and the question of whether it presents an appearance of independence. …

… There are three main issues regarding which the applicant company complained: (i) the quashing of the final decisions in its cases and the subsequent reopening of the proceedings in February 2005; (ii) the allegedly inconsistent decisions taken by the courts after the proceedings were reopened; and (iii) the alleged violation of the principles of and . …

… Even though the application was communicated under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of which the relevant parts read as follows: “In the determination of his [or her] civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A. Admissibility 1. The parties’ submissions 30. …

… The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court had not been because of the participation of Judge N. in the proceedings at issue and that it had not been able effectively to raise this complaint at domestic level. 29. …