search

… and by to be able, in accordance with a procedure that fully safeguards the rights enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, to review the validity of that decision and that of the decision not to adjudicate of a body such as the [NCJ] concerning the challenge brought against that transfer decision.” …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 of the Convention, under its civil head, to a dispute concerning a judge’s transfer to another division within one court (a) The parties’ submissions (i) The Government’s submissions 52. …

… Concluding his remarks, the Commissioner reiterated that the NCJ had previously been found by the Court, in the case of Reczkowicz (cited above), to lack sufficient independence and submitted, therefore, that a procedure concerning a judge’s transfer that involved the NCJ would fail to meet the requirements of the Convention unless there was a right of appeal against its decisions to an and by . (ii) Judges for Judges Foundation and Professor L. …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 49. The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings before the Sports Arbitration Board. …

… Compliance with the principle of “an and by ` (a) The parties’ submissions (i) The applicant 71. The applicant referred to a Constitutional Court decision (see paragraph 34 above) and argued that Sports Arbitration Board was an administrative body and did not qualify as a tribunal under domestic law. She claimed that it did not have full jurisdiction to determine a dispute on the basis of legal rules. …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by ...” Admissibility 24. The Government argued that the impugned proceedings before the TFF concerned a dispute arising out of the administration of football, to which Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not apply. 25. …

… Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 110-26, 20 March 2018, and Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 19750/13, § 90, 1 June 2023) considers it appropriate to examine the above complaints solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “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 .” …

… The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: “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 .” Inability to appeal against an SJC decision following remittal Admissibility 68. The Government did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of this complaint. 69. …

… The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that (i) her case had not been examined by “an and by ”; (ii) she had been deprived of an opportunity to use procedural guarantees of a fair hearing; and (iii) the principle of legal certainty had not been observed in her case. 24. …

… In the determination of his civil rights ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . ...” The parties’ arguments The applicant 87. …

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant: “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 .” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 43. The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable, either under its civil or its criminal limb. 44. …

… The relevant principles concerning the requirement of an “ and by ” can be found in Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland ([GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 211-16, 233‑34 and 242, 1 December 2020). 95. …

… Merits Alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing by an and by 92. The applicant complained that the assignment of Judge K. by the Deputy Head of the Court of Appeal to her case had been unlawful. In accordance with provision 3.1.13 of the applicable Regulation, a new judge in the applicant’s case had to be assigned via the system for automated (random) allocation of cases, which had not been done. 93. …

… That provision is worded as follows: ‘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 .’ 27 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, since the ECHR does not constitute, as long as the European Union has not acceded to it, a legal instrument which has been formally incorporated into EU …