search

… The applicant further complained that the rejection of the additional grounds of appeal on points of law violated his right to a fair trial as provided for in Article 6 of the Convention, which in relevant parts reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” Admissibility 65. …

… The applicant invoked Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “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: (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence ...” Admissibility 15. …

… In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an and by .” ... 93. Having regard to the facts of the case and its findings under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the investigation in issue (see paragraphs 65 to 72 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of this remaining complaint. …

… (a) Scope of the applicant’s complaint as regards the right to an “ and by ” 114. First and foremost, the task of the Court is to determine the scope of the applicant’s complaint concerning the right to an “ and by ”. 115. …

… Article 6, as far as relevant, reads as follows: “(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or 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 proven guilty according to law. (3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... …

… The right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 requires that a case be heard by an “ and by ”. The concepts of “independence” and “impartiality” are closely linked and, depending on the circumstances, may require joint examination (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, §§ 150 and 152; see also, as regards their close interrelationship, §§ 153-56; and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 61-64, 25 September 2018). …

… 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. …