search

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” ... 93. Having regard to the facts of the case and its findings under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the investigation in issue (see paragraphs 65 to 72 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of this remaining complaint. …

… First and foremost, the task of the Court is to determine the scope of the applicant’s complaint concerning the right to an “ and by ”. 115. …

… These two concepts also interact with that of a “ by ” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 218 et seq., §§ 231 et seq., and also § 295, 1 December 2020). (a) Scope of the applicant’s complaint as regards the right to an “ and by ” 114. …

… The right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 requires that a case be heard by an “ and by ”. The concepts of “” and “” are closely linked and, depending on the circumstances, may require joint examination (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 150 and 152; see also, as regards their close interrelationship, §§ 153-56; and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 61-64, 25 September 2018). …

… He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of which the relevant part 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 of Article 6 (a) The Government’s submissions 114. The Government contested the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the present case. …

… Poland, no. 1469/20, of 3 February 2022, in which the Court held that the judicial formation of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court including Judge K.Z. was not a “ by ” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that it lacked the and required by this provision (see §§ 26-27, 34-35, 44-52, 93 and 349-353). Other material 91. In 2019 Amnesty International published a report entitled “Poland: Free Courts, Free People. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in his favour. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 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 .” 7. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by . …

… Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and previously by . ...” Case-law of the CJEU Judgment of 27 February 2018 in Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117 148. …

… He alleged that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was unconstitutional, in so far as (1) the term "" used in that provision included the Constitutional Court, (2) it allowed the proceedings before that court to be covered by the requirements ensuing from Article 6 of the Convention, and (3) it encompassed the review by the Court of the legality of the election of Constitutional Court judges in order to determine whether that court was an and by …

… Article 6 § 1, first sentence, of the [Convention] in so far as it encompasses the review by the European Court of Human Rights of the legality of the process of election of Constitutional Court judges in order to determine whether the Constitutional Court is an and by , is incompatible with Article 2, Article 8 § 1, Article 89 § 1 (3) and Article 194 § 1 of the Constitution.” 99. …

… and that proceedings before the competent national court (Supreme Administrative Court) had not been concluded before the delivery of the appointment letter – is not an and previously by within the meaning of EU law?” …

… The applicant company had its cassation appeal (skarga kasacyjna) examined by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in a panel composed of three judges newly appointed through the procedure involving the National Council of the Judiciary (the “NCJ”) as in 2018. It complained that the Civil Chamber that had dealt with its case had not been an “ and by ” and alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2. …

… On the basis of an overall assessment of the above circumstances, the Supreme Court concludes that, as of this day, the National Council of the Judiciary does not provide sufficient guarantees of from the legislative and executive authorities in the judicial appointment procedure.” 121. This conclusion was the starting point for its assessment of whether the Disciplinary Chamber could be considered an “ and by ”: “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 ...” 6. The Government contested that argument. Admissibility 7. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 8. …

… THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 18. The applicant complained that one of the Constitutional Court’s judges who had ruled on her constitutional complaint had not been . She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . ...” Admissibility 19. …

… and that proceedings before the competent national court (Supreme Administrative Court) had not been concluded before the delivery of the appointment letter – is not an and previously by within the meaning of EU law?” …

… On the basis of an overall assessment of the above circumstances, the Supreme Court concludes that, as of this day, the National Council of the Judiciary does not provide sufficient guarantees of from the legislative and executive authorities in the judicial appointment procedure.” 108. This conclusion was the starting point for its assessment of whether the Disciplinary Chamber could be considered an “ and by ”: “61. …

… They complained that the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court, which examined their appeals against the resolutions of the NCJ, had not been an “ and by ”. They alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2. The applicants were born in 1979 and 1966 respectively and live in Siemianowice Śląskie and Lublin. They were represented by Ms S. Gregorczyk‑Abram and Ms M. …