search

… 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. …

… 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. …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “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 . ...” A. Admissibility 43. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. …

… FIRST SECTION CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA (Application no. 33234/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 May 2018 FINAL 08/10/2018 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.  PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS II.  EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT III.  BACKGROUND TO THE CASE A.  Terrorist attacks of which the applicant has been suspected 1.  USS Cole bombing in 2000 2.  MV Limburg bombing in …

… 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 .” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.” 10. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by . ...” A. Admissibility 1. Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention 28. The Government argued that the imposition of an administrative fine on the applicant did not constitute determination of a criminal charge against him. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 27. The applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair, in that the domestic court had not held an oral hearing and had imposed an administrative fine without granting him a hearing. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… They also argued that the trial courts had not been “ by ” having no jurisdiction in their cases. 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 .” 30. …

… ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE PRINCIPLE OF A “ BY ” 128. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that Judge A.K. had been assigned to examine their case in the trial court in breach of Articles 350 § 1 and 351 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They argued that this entailed a violation of their right to have their case examined by an and and/or their right to a fair trial. …

… Article 6 § 1 reads, in so far as relevant: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 129. The Court will examine the complaint that Judge A.K. was selected to hear the applicants’ case in violation of the relevant provisions of domestic law under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the requirement of a “tribunal established by law”. …

… THE I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 41.  The applicant complained that his second criminal case had not been examined by an . He 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 .” A.  Admissibility 42.   …