search

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair...hearing...by an and by .” A.  Civil proceedings before the Civil Court 1.  The parties’ submissions 76.  The applicant complained that the requirement to take a “supplementary oath” had amounted to a breach of his right to a fair trial. 77.   …

… The applicant company complained that the trial judge of the Kherson Suvorovsky District Court, who had examined the case concerning Article A at first instance, was not impartial and that that court had not been a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of which the relevant part reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by …

… Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, 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 . ...” A.  Admissibility 61.  It was the Government’s position that Article 6 was not applicable to the present case under either its civil or criminal head. …

… The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 22. The Government submitted that the CAO did not provide for the mandatory participation of a public prosecutor in each case concerning an administrative offence. …

… Therefore, his criminal charge had not been determined by a “tribunal established by law” as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the first sentence 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 .” 73. The Government contested this argument. A. Admissibility 74. …

… 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: ... (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. Admissibility 1. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an and by .” 116. The Government argued that the process of examining the applicant was entirely removed from any criminal investigation. …

… 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 ... ... 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... …

… and by . ...” …

… The applicant complained that the Bălţi Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the judgment of 18 December 2009, which was in his favour, following an appeal which had been lodged out of time, had breached his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, 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 …

… . …’ 4 Article 6 of the Convention, entitled ‘Right to a fair trial’, states in paragraph 1: ‘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 . …’ European Union law 5 Recital 16 of Directive 2016/343 is worded as follows: ‘The presumption of innocence would be violated if public statements made by public authorities, …