ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 10 (2) and Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights Handyside v the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, para. 49.Uj v Hungary, 19 July 2011. Mamère v France, 7 November 2006.Prager and Oberschlick v Austria, 26 April 1995.Axel Springer AG v Germany, 7 February 2012, para. 83.Pfeifer v Austria, 15 November 2007, para. 35.Nikula v Finski, 21 March 2002, para. 44.Skałka v Poland, 27 May 2003, para. 35.Perinçek v Switzerland, 15 October 2015, paras. 146, 154.Stoll v Switzerland, 10 December 2007, para. 101.Morice v France, 23 April 2015, para. 124.Pentikäinen v Finland, 20 October 2015, para. 87.Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Austria, 13 November 2003, para. 46.Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France, 22 October 2007, 59. točkaMustafa Erdoğan and Others v Turkey, 27 May 2014, para. 42.Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v Portugal, 17 January 2017, para. 63.  Witzsch v Germany, 13 December 2005.Hizb ut‑Tahrir and Others v Germany, 12 June 2012.ROJ TV A/S v Denmark, 17 April 2018.Romanov v Ukraine, 16 July 2020.Garaudy v France,  24 June 2003.Norwood v the United Kingdom, 16 November 2004. Pavel Ivanov v Russia, 20 February 2007. M’Bala v France, 20 October 2015.Belkacem v Belgium, 27 June 2017.Katamadze v Georgia, 14 February 2006.Palusinski v Poland, 3 October 2006.Williamson v Germany, 8 January 2019.Šimunić v Croatia, 22 January 2019.Lilliendahl v Iceland, 12 May 2020.

ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human RightsLangner v Germany, App. no. 14464/11, 17 September 2015Rubins v Latvia, App. no. 79040/12, 13 January 2015Palomo Sánchez and Others v Spain [GC], App. no. 28955/06, 12 September 2011Guja v Moldova [GC], App. no. 14277/04, 12 February 2008Heinish v Germany, App. no. 28274/08, 21 July 2021Fuentes Bobo v Spain, App. no. 39293/98, 29 February 2020Kharlamov v Russia, App. no. 27447/07, 8 October 2015Balenović v Croatia, App. no. 28369/07, 30 September 2010

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: No

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 6 is invoked without citing particular cases of the ECtHR

ECtHR jurisprudence: Not indicated

ECtHR jurisprudence: European Convention on Human Rights:Article 6.The Supreme Court referenced several key ECtHR cases to underline the importance of judicial independence and impartiality in ensuring the right to a fair trial:Reczkowicz v. Poland (Application No. 43447/19, Judgment of 22 July 2021):The ECtHR ruled that the composition of Poland's National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), influenced by political powers, compromised judicial independence, violating the applicant's right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland (Applications Nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, Judgment of 8 November 2021):The Court found that the judicial appointment process under the restructured KRS did not adhere to the standards of independence and impartiality required by Article 6(1) of the Convention.Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (Application No. 1469/20, Judgment of 3 February 2022):The ECtHR determined that irregularities in the judicial appointment process undermined the applicant’s right to a tribunal established by law, as protected by Article 6(1) of the Convention.These judgments, as cited by the Supreme Court, highlight the importance of maintaining judicial independence and impartiality to ensure compliance with the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

ECtHR jurisprudence: no