search

… 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). …

… Although it is necessary to introduce mechanisms to ensure the consistency of case-law, such mechanisms cannot be introduced in breach of the right of access to an and by . 2. Compliance with the right to effective judicial protection 56. …

… ., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and by .” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” Admissibility 88. …

… In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by . ...” Admissibility 51. The Court notes that the above complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions 52. …

… 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 . ...” 17. The applicant also complained that he had been dismissed unlawfully and that his right to respect for his private life had been violated. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. …

… Examining whether the CAS could be regarded as an ‘ and by ’ within the meaning of that provision, the ECtHR held that the CAS had the appearance of a tribunal established by law and that it was genuinely independent and impartial (Mutu and Pechstein, cited above, §§ 149 and 159), which it has had cause recently to confirm (Platini v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 526/18, 11 February 2020). 5.1.3. …

… Turkey, no. 714/08, §§ 34-37, 18 February 2014, where the complaint of a failure to ensure the right to an and by was declared inadmissible on that basis; see also Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 103, 11 July 2013; it is only permissible to complain about the unreasonable length of such proceedings). …

… The ensuing obligation of Poland to ensure the enjoyment of the right to a fair trial by an and by to everyone under its jurisdiction is not, at this stage, fulfilled. 30. To ensure the implementation of its international obligations under Article 1, Article 6 § 1 and Article 32 of the Convention, action is required by Poland. …

… Furthermore, the CPL found that the impugned resolution should have been upheld despite the fact that it had been given by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, that is, a body which, in accordance with the rulings of the CJEU, the Court and the Supreme Court, did not guarantee the right to an and by (referring, inter alia, to the CJEU’s judgment of 15 July 2021 in Commission v. …

… The applicant complained that he had not had a fair and public hearing by an and by in the vetting proceedings, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “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 ...” …

… Other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention (a) and by 83. The applicant complained that the vetting bodies, generally and as regards the benches hearing his case, had not been independent and impartial. The parties’ observations are similar to those in Xhoxhaj (cited above, §§ 260-75). The Court considers that the applicant has not raised any meritorious argument and finds no reason to depart from its findings in Xhoxhaj (§§ 294-317). …