search

… Before this Court they complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the jurisdictional organs of the Chamber were not and by . …

… He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility Applicability ratione materiae (a) The parties’ submissions 36. The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention could not create, by way of interpretation, a substantive civil right which had no basis in the State concerned. …

… All decisions have to be taken within short time limits as defined by .” THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 35. The applicant complained that he had had no access to a court to challenge the decision of the HSK of 13 May 2020 refusing to confirm his appointment to judicial office. …

… The applicant had not complained that he had been denied access to an “ and by ” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. …

… 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 ... 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... …

… The Chamber, by a majority, declared admissible the complaint that the disciplinary court had not satisfied the requirements of an and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of this provision. …

… The obligation to suspend the application of the Polish provisions prohibiting national courts from verifying compliance with the requirements of the European Union relating to an and previously by Arguments 45 The Republic of Poland argues that Polish allows the right to an and by to be safeguarded at various stages of cases and in different procedures. …

… The obligation to suspend the application of the Polish provisions which allow the disciplinary liability of judges to be incurred for having examined compliance with the requirements of and of a previously by Arguments 57 The Republic of Poland submits that the applicable Polish provisions have never allowed the disciplinary liability of judges to be incurred because they guaranteed individuals the right of access to a by …

… U. of 2002, item 1269), as amended by the amending (‘the amended relating to the administrative courts’), and Article 8 of the amending , which prohibit any national court from reviewing compliance with the EU requirements relating to an and previously by , the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of …

… He further alleged that the domestic courts had not been . Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time ... by an and by .” 78. The Government submitted that the complaints were inadmissible. …

… and scarcity of official sources of information concerning legal and court system in Abkhazia • Court not in a position to verify whether de facto Abkhaz authorities and courts fulfilled Art 5 requirements • No basis for assuming existence of system in the region reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and 6 § 3 (c) • Lack of fair hearing by an and by • De facto Abkhaz courts could not qualify as a “tribunal …

… Abkhaz authorities in relation to detained applicants • Positive obligations of Georgia with regard to Abkhazia, a part of its territory over which at the time it had no control • No responsibility on the part of Georgia for acts as positive obligations discharged Art 3 • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Ill-treatment during interrogation, inadequate conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical treatment Art 5 § 1 (a) and (c) • Unlawful arrest and detention • No information as to applicable …

… They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, insofar 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 .” 7. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in Karelin v. …

… THE JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6. The applicants complained principally of the lack of of the in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. …

… . 5 According to the first sentence of Article 6(1) ECHR: ‘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 ’. 6 Judgment of 23 November 2021 (C-564/19, EU:C:2021:949, paragraph 121). 7 ECtHR, 12 May 2017, Simeonovi v. …

… ., The Trial, Penguin Modern Classics, London, 1963. 3 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1). 4 It should be noted that the fact, mentioned by the referring court, that the concept of ‘suspect’ is not recognised in Bulgarian is not such as to raise doubts in that regard, since it is undoubtedly an autonomous concept of EU , which does not depend, by definition, on national classifications …

… 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 . ...” Admissibility 113. The parties did not dispute that Article 6 of the Convention was applicable. …

… The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the cases relating to their dismissal had not been examined by an “ and ”. …

… They also complained that their cases had not been examined by “a tribunal by ”; that the proper domestic procedure involving a preliminary investigation by the Constitutional Court had not been followed; that they had not been permitted to effectively participate in the examination of their cases; that their right to a reasoned decision had not been ensured; and that the principle of legal certainty had not been respected, given that there was no time-limit for imposing liability …

… She 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 .” 7. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references). …

… The applicant complained of the lack of of the in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. She also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and Protocol No. 7. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6. The applicant complained principally of the lack of of the in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. …