search

… 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. …

… 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. …