search

… See also Pech, L., The Right to an and Tribunal Previously Established by Law under of the EU , in Peers, S. et al., The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary, Hart, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 3608669. 23 Emphasis added. Judgment in A. …

… Given that W.Ż. comes under the scope of the protection afforded in the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of of the , he has a right under those provisions - flowing directly from EU law (17) - to effective judicial protection which implies that his action must be examined by a body which has the status of a ‘court or tribunal’ as defined by EU law, that is, a body which is , and established by law. (18) In this case, as the KRS is …

… The right to effective judicial protection under the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and of the encompasses the right to a tribunal established by law and the scope of those provisions and of that notion must be established by having regard to the case-law of the ECtHR concerning 6(1) and 13 of the ECHR. 71. …

… The second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU in the light of of the must be interpreted as meaning that a court chamber does not constitute an and tribunal, within the meaning of those provisions, when the objective conditions in which it was created, its characteristics as well as the manner of appointment of its members are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that chamber to external …

… K. and Others, that the answer to the first part of the fourth question and the fifth question referred is that the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of of the , must be interpreted as meaning that a body does not constitute an and court, within the meaning of those provisions, where the objective circumstances in which that body was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving …

… a court which is not an and tribunal, within the meaning of the former provision. …

… It argues that the procedural guarantees underlying both the preliminary and administrative penalty proceedings are such that the resulting decisions are taken by an and ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of of the . Given that the Takeover Commission thus, in both cases, acts as the ‘court of first instance’, limiting the standard of review of the Supreme Court to questions of law only, is compatible with Article 47 of the Charter. 63. …

… As regards the first paragraph of of the , those parties submit that, in the light of the limited judicial review available to the Supreme Court, recognising the binding effect of the Preliminary Decision, once it became definitive, in the context of the subsequent administrative penalty proceeding and for court proceedings before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Austria), undermines their right to effective judicial protection arising from the …

… It transpires from the decision of the Constitutional Court at issue that what is at stake is the interpretation of the second paragraph of of the with regard not only to the right to a ‘tribunal previously established by law’, but also with regard to other elements of the right to a fair trial, such as the requirements of and , in particular with regard to the ‘internal ’ of judges. (74) 136. …

… By its second question in Case C-357/19, the referring court asks whether the second paragraph of of the is to be interpreted as precluding the finding, by the Constitutional Court, of a lack of and of a judicial panel where that panel includes a judge responsible for judicial administration who, unlike the other four members of that panel, was not randomly selected. …

… (2) Must (2) of [the ] be interpreted as precluding a finding by a body outside the judicial system - binding under national law - of the lack of and of a Chamber which includes a judge responsible for judicial administration who has not been randomly appointed, but on the basis of a transparent rule known to the parties and unchallenged by them, applicable to all the cases dealt with by that same chamber? …

… For the reasons already set out in detail in points 145 to 156 in the Euro Box Promotion Opinion, the answer is no, of the does not preclude any such finding. 106. …

… With regard to legal issues and situations falling within the scope of EU law, but which are not fully determined by it, although the Court has found that of the is infringed particularly when irregularities are of such gravity that they create a real risk of undue discretion which thus raises reasonable doubts as to the and of judges, (33) this does not preclude a national constitutional court from finding that the constitutional right to a fair trial …

… Second, from the EU point of view, and in close connection to the approach taken by the ECtHR on that matter, it does not appear that any infringement of national rules governing the composition of a judicial panel would automatically lead to an infringement of of the . …

… According to the Commission, there is nothing to indicate that the Constitutional Court, and in particular, the constitutional decisions at issue, are not compliant with the requirements of judicial and flowing from the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and from of the . 82. I agree with that latter position. 83. …

… As a result, I propose that the Court answer the first part of Question 3 as follows: the EU principle of judicial , enshrined in the second paragraph of of the and in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, does not preclude decisions of a national constitutional court declaring the carrying out of technical surveillance measures in the framework of criminal proceedings by domestic intelligence services to be unconstitutional and requiring the exclusion of any …

… Thus, respecting the formal institutional authority of another (judicial) institution is warranted as long as that institution itself meets the structural guarantees of and . (32) 89. …

… The second paragraph of provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. 45 According to the explanations relating to that , which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52(7) of the , must be taken into account in interpreting it, the second paragraph of Article of the Charter corresponds to Article 6(1) of the Convention …

… , in particular the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, for the purposes of verifying the lawfulness of the presumption of notification at issue. 44 The first paragraph of of the provides that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in that . …

… specifies that, in the event of unsuccessful notification of a registered letter, the point from which time starts to run for the calculation of the time limit for bringing proceedings is deferred until the expiry of the retention period for that letter by the postal service rather than the date on which the applicant actually became aware of the content of that letter. 43 In the absence of legislation setting out such a rule of law, reference should be made to the principle of legal certainty and the …

… . …’ The 7 Title VI of the , under the heading ‘Justice’, includes thereof, entitled ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’, which states as follows: ‘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 Article. …

… Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. … …’ Directive 2000/78 8 Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 provides: ‘The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal …

… concerning rights and obligations under EU law, it must have power to consider all the questions of fact and law that are relevant to the case before it. (71) Additionally, the Court has ruled that compliance with the second paragraph of of the entails that a decision of an administrative authority which does not itself satisfy the conditions of and must be subject to subsequent control by a judicial body which must, in particular, have jurisdiction to …

… According to the Court’s case-law, the right to effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the Charter comprises various elements, including the rights of the defence, the principle of equality of arms, the right of access to a court and the right to be advised, defended and represented. (70) With regard, in particular, to the right of access to a court under the first paragraph of of the , the Court has held that, for such a court to be able to determine a dispute …

… Nonetheless, it follows from the Court’s case-law that compliance with the right to effective judicial protection on the basis of of the must be examined in relation to the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the act at issue, the context in which it was adopted and the legal rules governing the matter in question. (73) Thus, as noted by commentators, there is not one uniform standard for judicial review of administrative decisions by national courts in …

… of the , which is the standard by reference to which the Council must assess compliance with the right to effective judicial protection, provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 June 2020, Klymenko v Council, T-295/19, EU:T:2020:287, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited). 99 In so far as the Charter contains rights which correspond to …

… rights guaranteed by the ECHR, such as those provided for by 6, their meaning and scope are, under Article 52(3) of the Charter, the same as those laid down by the ECHR. 100 In that regard, it must be noted that, in its interpretation of Article 6 ECHR, the ECtHR has held that the purpose of the reasonable time principle is, inter alia, to protect persons charged with a criminal offence against excessive procedural delays and to prevent them from being left in a state of uncertainty about …

… rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection had been respected, whereas, as the applicant argued, those proceedings, which concerned acts allegedly committed between 2011 and 2014, were still at the preliminary investigation stage and, moreover, had been transferred, already closed, to other investigating authorities in November 2019, with the result that the cases in question had not yet been submitted to a Ukrainian court with regard to the substance. 98 The second paragraph of …