search

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 16. The applicant complained that the lack of a prosecuting party in the proceedings in the Court of Appeal meant that that court could not be considered , in breach of 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 .” …

… Article 6 § 1 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 .” Admissibility 28. The Court notes that the applicability of the civil limb of the Convention is a matter which the Court has to examine on its own motion and regardless of the parties’ submissions (see Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 19750/13, § 107, 1 June 2023). …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 27. The applicant complained that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the grounds that the Court of Appeal, in particular Judge L., had been biased and that his case had been unlawfully transferred to the extended composition of that court. …

… In that regard, according to the ECtHR, while the right to a ‘ by ’ guaranteed in Article 6(1) ECHR constitutes an right, it is nevertheless very closely related to the guarantees of ‘independence’ and ‘’, within the meaning of that provision. …

… Secondly, the mechanism at issue is intended to ensure horizontal consistency, with each court of second instance having to ensure that its own case- is consistent, a consideration to which the ECtHR attaches particular importance. (37) 55. Although it is necessary to introduce mechanisms to ensure the consistency of case-, such mechanisms cannot be introduced in breach of the right of access to an and by . 2. …

… That phrase reflects, in particular, the principle of the rule of and covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a , but also the composition of the bench in each case and any other provision of domestic which, if breached, would render the participation of one or more judges in the examination of a case irregular, including, in particular, provisions concerning the and of the members of the court concerned. (58) 80. …

… ., 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. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” Admissibility 88. …

… Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 137-38, 1 December 2020, for the right to a “ by ” and the guarantees of “” and “” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) duly and thoroughly examined by domestic courts, the presumption of innocence being above all a procedural safeguard and one of the elements of a fair trial required by Article 6 of the Convention (see Konstas, cited above, § 29; see also, for illustrative purposes, Savvaidou v. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 and 2 OF THE CONVENTION 87. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that his right to an and and to the presumption of innocence had been breached by the Minister’s statement during the pending criminal proceedings, which had constituted unacceptable pressure on the Higher Court’s judges. Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONCENTION ( OF THE JURY) 50. The applicant complained that his trial had not been fair because the jury which had reached a guilty verdict in his case had not been . He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . ...” …

… The applicant complained that (i) the case relating to his dismissal had not been examined by an “ and ”; (ii) his case had not been examined by “a by ” given that the authorities dealing with his case had gone beyond their jurisdiction; (iii) the right to a reasoned decision had not been respected; and (iv) the principle of legal certainty had not been observed given that no time-limits existed for imposing liability for “breach of oath”. …

… 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 . ...” 17. The applicant also complained that he had been dismissed unlawfully and that his right to respect for his private life had been violated. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLEs 6 and 8 OF THE CONVENTION 16. …

… Examining whether the CAS could be regarded as an ‘ and by ’ within the meaning of that provision, the ECtHR held that the CAS had the appearance of a by and that it was genuinely and (Mutu and Pechstein, cited above, §§ 149 and 159), which it has had cause recently to confirm (Platini v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 526/18, 11 February 2020). 5.1.3. …

… That case- has since been confirmed many times ... In its judgment in Mutu and Pechstein (cited above), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was also called upon to rule on the and of the CAS. …

… While this type of arbitration was not prohibited, the arbitral had to afford the safeguards under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular those of and (Mutu and Pechstein, cited above, §§ 95 and 114 et seq.). …

… Turkey, no. 714/08, §§ 34-37, 18 February 2014, where the complaint of a failure to ensure the right to an and by was declared inadmissible on that basis; see also Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 103, 11 July 2013; it is only permissible to complain about the unreasonable length of such proceedings). …

… request contrary to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union having precedence over domestic • Decision on lifting immunity and suspension based on an unforeseeable interpretation of the domestic by a body not constituting an “ and by ” Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Preliminary inquiries concerning applicant’s public statements on a television news channel and in public meetings • Decision on lifting immunity and suspension • Impugned …

… The ensuing obligation of Poland to ensure the enjoyment of the right to a fair trial by an and by to everyone under its jurisdiction is not, at this stage, fulfilled. 30. To ensure the implementation of its international obligations under Article 1, Article 6 § 1 and Article 32 of the Convention, action is required by Poland. …

… The applicant complained that he had not had a fair and public hearing by an and by in the vetting proceedings, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “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 ...” …

… Other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention (a) and by 83. The applicant complained that the vetting bodies, generally and as regards the benches hearing his case, had not been and . The parties’ observations are similar to those in Xhoxhaj (cited above, §§ 260-75). The Court considers that the applicant has not raised any meritorious argument and finds no reason to depart from its findings in Xhoxhaj (§§ 294-317). …

… The Court notes that in his application the applicant referred – as part of his arguments relating to the applicability of Article 6 and as regards the requirement of an and – to certain supposed defects in the appointment procedure for certain members of the vetting bodies. In his observations of November 2020 he further argued, on similar grounds, that the SAC in his case had not been a tribunal “ by ” (see also Besnik Cani v. …