search

… The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1, the relevant part of 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 The parties’ submissions (a)   The Government 40.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. …

… Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court considers that these complaints fell to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A.  Admissibility 52.   …

… As to the applicant’s argument that he was unable to have his case, including his civil claims, reviewed by an and by because the pre-trial judge lacked the competences and functions of a proper court (see paragraph 115 above), the Court firstly notes that the guarantees set out in Article 6 under its criminal limb were not applicable in the circumstances of the applicant’s case. …

… The applicant was of the opinion that in spite of his best efforts, he had been unable to have his case – including his civil claims, which had been joined to the criminal proceedings – reviewed by an and by . In accordance with the relevant procedural rules, a pre-trial judge was merely a specialised body of the State which performed judicial activities and therefore lacked the competence and functions of a proper court. …

… 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 . …

… It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of 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 The parties’ submissions (a)   The Government 104.   …

… 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 . ... 2.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3.   …

… In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by ... 3.   …

… The first sentence 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 and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” The Chamber judgment 155. …

… Relying on these arguments, as well as on the decisions of the EFTA Court and the General Court of the EU as noted above (see paragraph 82 above), and on the previous findings of the Supreme Court regarding the irregularities in the procedure leading to the appointment of A.E. as a Court of Appeal judge (see the relevant judgments noted in paragraphs 67-75 above), the applicant claimed that he had been denied the right to a fair hearing before an and by …

… , as provided under Article 70 § 1 of the Constitution and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . ... 3.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (d)  to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him ...” A. …

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A. The parties’ submissions The Government 35.   …

… The case concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to an and by under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, mainly on account of the transfer of his case from the Istanbul 5th Assize Court to the Istanbul 8th Assize Court – which was designated as a specialised assize court to deal with certain banking offences – after the institution of the criminal proceedings against him. THE FACTS 2.   …

… ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO AN AND BY UNDER ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 34.  The applicant complained that he had not been tried by a “lawful” or “natural” judge, but before an “extraordinary tribunal” that had been established after the commission of the crime that he had been charged with, which was contrary to the requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to be tried before a tribunal established by law. …