search

… 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. …

… 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. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. …

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

… He alleged that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was unconstitutional, in so far as (1) the term "tribunal" 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 identifies the guarantee arising therefrom to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by in the determination of one’s civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, with the competence of the Constitutional Court to adjudicate upon the hierarchical conformity of provisions and normative acts stipulated in the Constitution ..., and thereby allows …

… This conclusion was the starting point for its assessment of whether the Disciplinary Chamber could be considered an “ and by ”: “61. …

… 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. The applicant company’s registered office is in Warsaw. It was represented by Mr D. Gliński, the Chairman of the Board. The applicant company had been granted legal aid in the proceedings before the Court and was represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska and Ms J. …

… Article 6 paragraph 2., and Article 6 paragraph 1, first sentence, of the Convention referred to in paragraph 1, to the extent to which it identifies the guarantee arising therefrom to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, with the competence of the Constitutional Court to adjudicate upon the hierarchical compliance with provisions …

… 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. …

… 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. The Court notes that the application is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. …

… 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. …

… The Supreme Court concluded: “Consequently, the necessity of meeting the Convention standard of fair trial in terms of access to an and by requires, in application of Article 91 section 2 of the Polish Constitution, a refusal to apply the provisions of Article 29 § 2 and 3 of the Act on the Supreme Court and, as a further consequence, quashing the decision appealed against, so that in further proceedings the convicted person is entitled to guarantees …

… The applicant complained that his right of access to a court had been breached because he could not have his challenge against the parliamentary decision terminating his service as a member and President of the CSA examined on the merits by an and by . …

… He alleged in particular that his challenge against a parliamentary decision terminating his service as a member and president of a central public authority, which had had negative effects of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature for him, had not been examined on the merits by an and by . THE FACTS 2. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr O.M. Țibuleac, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 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. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... …