search

… He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read: Article 6 “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 ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by . ...” 21. The Government stated that the Tarsus Magistrates’ Court had used its discretionary power under section 28 § 4 of the Misdemeanours Act and examined the applicant’s objection without holding a hearing. …

… THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 20. The applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair, in that the domestic court had not held an oral hearing and had rejected its objection to the administrative fine without having examined the relevant evidence. It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… The Court, as master of the characterisation to be given in to the facts of the case, considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads 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 . …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows: “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. …

… In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public 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[.]” 17. The Government contested that argument. …

… THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 16. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he alleged that his guilt had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that the presiding judge had exerted undue influence on the jury and that witness Sh. had not been questioned in court. The applicant relied on in Article 6 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1. …

… They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, insofar as relevant, as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by .” A. Admissibility 16. The Court notes that this 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. …

… THE 14. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 15. The applicants complained of a violation of their right to a fair trial on account of the contradictory judgments delivered by domestic courts in very similar cases. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows: “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. …

… 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. Admissibility 27. In the case of Petrenko and Others one of the applicants, Ms Agibalova lodged her application with the Court on behalf of her late husband, Mr V. Shvetsov, who passed away before bringing his case to the Court. 28. …

… 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. Admissibility 28. The Government submitted from the outset that the domestic judgments in respect of some applicants had been executed in full prior to being quashed and they were not required to reimburse them afterwards (see “Enforcement status” in the Appendix). …

… The above provision 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 .” 49. The Government contested that argument. A. Admissibility 1. Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention: the criminal head 50. …

… THE I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE OF THE SCJ 48. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the same judges had charged, tried and convicted him, in breach of the principle of . …

… Every person has the right: (a) to be informed of the reasons why he is required to appear before the court; (b) to present his case before the court and to have sufficient time necessary for its preparation; (c) to adduce or cause to be adduced his evidence and to examine witnesses according to law; (d) to have a lawyer of his own choice and to have free legal assistance where the interests of justice so require and as provided by ; (e) to have free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand …