search

… The applicant complained of the lack of impartiality of the trial panel in breach of the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention, which 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 54.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. …

… The first sentence of Article 6 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 .” The provision guarantees judicial protection and a fair and public trial. In a fair trial the judge applies the applicable legal rules, including substantive legal rules. …

… The applicant complained that he had not had an independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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 and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . ...” 41.  The Government contested that argument. Admissibility 42.   …

… 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: ... …

… The Court must first ascertain whether the Arbitration Committee could be regarded as an “ and by ” within the meaning of that Article and the principles laid down in paragraphs above, at the time when it adjudicated the applicants’ respective cases (see Mutu and Pechstein, cited above, § 148). 202.   …

… All of the applicants complained that the proceedings before the Arbitration Committee had not met the requirements of independence and impartiality 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 and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by . ...” 144.   …

… THIRD SECTION CASE OF KHODORKOVSKIY AND LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2) (Applications nos. 51111/07 and 42757/07) JUDGMENT Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (c) and (d) • Fair hearing • Defence through legal assistance • Confinement in glass cabin negatively impacting the exercise of an accused’s right to participate effectively in proceedings • Systematic perusal by trial judge of written communications between the accused and their lawyers • Adversarial trial • Equality of arms • Omission to hear in …

… 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: ... …

… This, in the applicant’s view, amounted to a breach of the Convention requirement for his case to be determined by an “impartial tribunal”, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows: “In the determination ...of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” A.   …

… They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, is no far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 33.  The Government contested that argument. They considered that the proceedings against the applicants had been in compliance with the guarantees set out in Article 6 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: ... …