search

… OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SAUGMANDSGAARD ØE delivered on 19 December 2019 (1) Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems, interveners: The United States of America, Electronic Privacy Information Centre, BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc., Digitaleurope (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court, Ireland) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU …

… That right corresponds to the right to an effective remedy and of access to an tribunal as provided for in the first and second paragraphs of of the (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 July 2017, Sacko, C-348/16, EU:C:2017:591, paragraph 39). 46 That right means that every person must be entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal, previously established by law. …

… In that situation, according to the appellant, the assignment of the case to a different Chamber is not a mere measure of organisation of procedure, but rather a means to ensure the right to a fair hearing by an and tribunal previously established by law, in accordance with of the and the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’). 42 Similarly …

… Had the President of the General Court intended for that case to be looked at afresh, the only possibility available to him was to assign the case to another Chamber, that is to say, to a Chamber with a different composition. 41 The appellant submits that the principle underpinning 216(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court is to enable the President of that Court, where advisable, to allow a case that has previously been ruled on to be looked at afresh. …

… court which does not meet the requirements of and arising from of the would deprive that individual of any effective remedy within the meaning of that and of 9(1) of Directive 2000/78, and would fail to comply with the essential content of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in of the (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 July 2019, Torubarov, C-556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraph 72). 166 It follows that, where it appears …

… or with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law. 154 If the referring court were to conclude that that is the case, it would follow that such a court does not meet the requirements arising from of the and from 9(1) of Directive 2000/78 on account of its not being an and tribunal, within the meaning of the former provision. 155 If that is the case, the referring court …

… of the and 9(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding cases concerning the application of EU law from falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court which is not an and tribunal, within the meaning of the former provision. …

… The 5 Title VI of the , headed ‘Justice’, includes , headed ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’, which provides: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this . …

… Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. … …’ 6 Article 51 of the states: ‘1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. …

… 2 TEU now provides that the Union is founded on the value of respect for the rule of law. 19(2) TEU provides that the judges and Advocates General of the Court of Justice ‘shall be chosen from persons whose is beyond doubt’. of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) provides for a guarantee of an effective remedy and a hearing before an ‘ and tribunal’. 5. …

… It is, in my view, contrary to the maxim nemo judex in causa sua and, by definition, contrary to the fundamental principle laid down in (2) of the requiring an and tribunal. B. Whether the TEAC enjoys the requisite degree of independence such that it could be constituted a court or tribunal for the purposes of 267 TFEU 32. …

… 6(1) of the ECHR provides that 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 tribunal established by law. …

… That right relates to the principle of effective judicial protection which has, moreover, been enshrined in of the of Fundamental Rights (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2009, Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland v Commission, C-385/07 P, EU:C:2009:456, paragraphs 177 and 179). 98 In addition, the European Court of Human Rights noted, first, that the purpose of the reasonable time principle was, inter alia, to protect a person charged with a criminal offence against …

… guaranteed, even if, as the applicant had claimed on several occasions in his letters sent to the Council, those proceedings, which had already been ongoing for several years, and had been, in some instances, suspended or transferred several times between investigation bureaux, were still at the pre-trial investigation stage and had been brought before a Ukrainian court for the consideration not of the substance but, at most, of mere procedural questions. 97 In that regard, it should be noted that …

… 6(1) of the ECHR provides that 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 tribunal established by law. …

… That right relates to the principle of effective judicial protection which has, moreover, been enshrined in of the of Fundamental Rights (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2009, Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland v Commission, C-385/07 P, EU:C:2009:456, paragraphs 177 and 179). 97 In addition, the European Court of Human Rights noted, first, that the purpose of the reasonable time principle was, inter alia, to protect a person charged with a criminal offence against …

… guaranteed, even if, as the applicant had claimed on several occasions in his letters sent to the Council, those proceedings, which had already been ongoing for several years, and had been, in some instances, suspended or transferred several times between investigation bureaux, were still at the pre-trial investigation stage and had been brought before a Ukrainian court for the consideration not of the substance but, at most, of mere procedural questions. 96 In that regard, it should be noted that …

… The content of that right as there defined by Chronopost corresponds to the wording of 6(1) ECHR and (2) of the : ‘everyone must be entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal established by law’. (102) 132. …

… Paragraph 45 does no more than echo the full wording of the right guaranteed by 6(1) ECHR and of the . Paragraphs 46, 47 and 48 then move on to discuss the important question of ex officio verification of the and of the panel of judges called upon to dispose of any particular dispute. There is no further examination of the question of whether a court has indeed been ‘established by law’. …

… Accordingly, having regard to the importance of compliance with the rules governing the appointment of a judge for the confidence of litigants and the public in the and of the courts, the judge at issue cannot be regarded as a lawful judge within the meaning of the first sentence of the second paragraph of of the of Fundamental Rights. 79. …

… 16 and 18 of Directive 2012/29, it should be noted that, according to recital 12 thereof, the directive provides that the rights set out in it are without prejudice to the rights of the offender. 38 Under the second paragraph of of the , everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law, and everyone is to have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. …

… Moreover, 48(2) of the Charter states that respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged is to be guaranteed. 39 In so far as the Charter contains rights corresponding to rights guaranteed under the ECHR, Article 52(3) of the Charter is intended to ensure the necessary consistency between the rights contained in the Charter and the corresponding rights guaranteed under the ECHR, without thereby adversely affecting the autonomy of EU law and that of the Court of Justice …

… judicial stage of the criminal proceedings, Mr Gambino having been referred to a new panel of judges. 35 In those circumstances, Article 20(b) of Directive 2012/29 does not apply to a dispute such as that in the main proceedings. 36 In any event, by stating that Member States are to ensure that the number of interviews is kept to a minimum, that provision does not require that the victim of a criminal offence should be examined only once by the trial court. 37 With regard to the interpretation of …

… 6(1) of the ECHR provides that 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 tribunal established by law. …

… That right relates to the principle of effective judicial protection and has, moreover, been reaffirmed in of the of Fundamental Rights (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2009, Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland v Commission, C-385/07 P, EU:C:2009:456, paragraphs 177 and 179). 85 Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has already pointed out that infringement of that principle could be established in particular where the investigation phase of criminal …

… explain how the existence of those decisions permits the inference that the protection of the rights in question was guaranteed, even though, as the applicant had argued, in particular in his letter of 26 January 2018 to the Council, that procedure, which had been ongoing since March 2014, was still at the preliminary investigation stage and had not been submitted to a Ukrainian court on the substance but at most, only in respect of procedural issues. 84 In that regard, it should be noted that …