search

… It is apparent from the case-law of the Court that such an appointment is not, in itself, such as to establish a breach of the right to an and by . 32 It should be noted that the Court has repeatedly pointed out that the procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which …

… He therefore alleged that the premature termination of his office had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads: “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 disputed the admissibility of the complaint. …

… The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 37. The Government argued that the Constitutional Court had scrupulously examined the complaints that the applicant had subsequently raised before the Court and found them inadmissible for being manifestly ill‑founded. …

… Right to fair trial “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” 120. In particular, the first applicant argued that he had been deprived of his liberty from 7 July 2015 until 29 December 2018 and convicted on 28 March 2016 following decisions taken by an “MRT court”, the unconstitutionality of which had rendered his detention and conviction “unlawful”. …

… He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads in its relevant part as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility The parties’ arguments 31. …

… The applicant complained that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court which had examined his case was not an “ and by ”, given that one of the judges was a former Prosecutor General of Georgia who had been appointed to the Supreme Court in violation of a statutory eligibility criterion. …

… The case concerns the applicant’s allegation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which examined his case in domestic proceedings, was not an “ and by ”. THE FACTS 2. The applicant was born in 1975 and was detained in Tbilisi at the relevant time. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Baramidze and Mr B. Basilaia, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. 3. …

… SECOND SECTION CASE OF AL-HAWSAWI v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 6383/17) JUDGMENT Art 1 • Jurisdiction of respondent State for alleged Convention violations of a terrorist suspect’s right during the United States (US) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) extraordinary rendition operations • Responsibility engaged Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Inhuman treatment during the applicant’s extraordinary rendition to CIA • Respondent State’s complicity in the CIA High-Value Detainee Programme enabling …

… Specifically, it finds that the applicants did not benefit from a fair hearing by an and by . …

… Georgia and Russia applied • Lack of fair hearing by an and by • De facto Abkhaz courts could not qualify as a “tribunal established by law” • No real opportunity to organise defence and effectively benefit from the assistance of a lawyer throughout proceedings • Situation in respect of the legal and judicial system in Abkhazia could not be attributed to Georgia Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. …

… Merits The parties’ submissions (a) Whether the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs satisfies the standard of an “ and by ” 156. …

… ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE RIGHT TO AN AND BY 133. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his case had been examined by the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court, a body that did not constitute an “ and by ” within the meaning of this provision. …

… It further held that, on that account, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right to an and by (ibid., §§ 353 in fine and 357, and the fifth operative provision of the judgment). 176. …

… The applicant complained that the lack of a prosecuting party in the proceedings in the Court of Appeal meant that that court could not be considered impartial, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” The parties’ submissions 17. …

… Article 6 § 1 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 28. The Court notes that the applicability of the civil limb of the Convention is a matter which the Court has to examine on its own motion and regardless of the parties’ submissions (see Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 19750/13, § 107, 1 June 2023). …