search

… K. and Others ( of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982, paragraphs 116 to 118 and the case- cited). 78 On the one hand, although under Article 6(1) ECHR ‘everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by ’, that right is not absolute and may be subject to legitimate restrictions (ECtHR, 14 December 2006, Markovic and Others v. …

… the CFSP, a context which does not fall within the scope of the provisions of the Treaties in respect of which Article 24 TEU and Article 275 TFEU limit the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 77 Second, the Court must admittedly ensure that the interpretation which it gives to Article 47 of the Charter, the first and second paragraphs of which correspond to Article 6(1) and Article 13 ECHR, safeguards a level of protection which does not fall below the level of protection …

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 33. …

… The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court’s had been compromised because the daughter of the respondent company’s lawyer was the judicial assistant of one of the judges, L.M., on the panel which had examined their cases and rejected them as inadmissible. …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “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 .” Admissibility Access to the Constitutional Court and right to a reasoned judgment (a) The parties’ arguments 34. …

… The applicant Government submitted that those “judges” could not be considered and . Nor could any “court” or “” over which they presided be considered to be a competent judicial authority by . Their appointment was an inducement to former Ukrainian officials to cooperate (or collaborate) with the Russian Federation. 61. …

… 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 ...” Admissibility Applicability of Article 6 34. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 33. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been deprived of access to a court, as the Supreme Administrative Court had declared his action on the State’s liability as regards damage caused by an act of a judicial body inadmissible. Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. …

… ., had lacked and . The relevant parts of Article 6 of the Convention read: Article 6 “1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing by an and by . ... 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... …

… It is apparent from the case- of the Court that such an appointment is not, in itself, such as to a breach of the right to an and by . 32 It should be noted that the Court has repeatedly pointed out that the procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which …

… The requests for a preliminary ruling do not reveal any particular concern as to the of the courts which delivered the final judicial decisions at issue in the main proceedings. The referring court’s doubts relate solely to the fact that the judges in question were appointed on the proposal of a body half of whose members were elected by the legislature. …

… He therefore alleged that the premature termination of his office had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility The Parties’ submissions (a) The Government 40. The Government disputed the admissibility of the complaint. …

… He also stated that the Constitutional Court lacked the authority to examine individual applications directed against a . Thus, he argued that he had had no effective remedy that he could use with a view to contesting the premature termination of his office, even though there had been no objective grounds for restricting his right of access to a court. …

… The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 37. The Government argued that the Constitutional Court had scrupulously examined the complaints that the applicant had subsequently raised before the Court and found them inadmissible for being manifestly ill‑founded. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 36. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial owing to a breach of the “natural judge” principle, since the court which had ultimately convicted him had not heard evidence from A.Y., who had only been heard by a court which had since been abolished. …

… Right to fair trial “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 120. In particular, the first applicant argued that he had been deprived of his liberty from 7 July 2015 until 29 December 2018 and convicted on 28 March 2016 following decisions taken by an “MRT court”, the unconstitutionality of which had rendered his detention and conviction “unlawful”. …

… No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by : (a) the detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (c) the arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so... …