Total Row: 50 / View:
Page:
TRIIAL CASE
Hungary, a Kúria mellett eljáró másodfokú szolgálati bíróság (Second-instance Service Court acting alongside the Curia), SzfÉ.8/2023/7., appellate, 19 January 2024
Deciding court: Second-instance Service Court acting alongside the Curia
Topic: accountability
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 6 is invoked without citing particular cases of the ECtHR
TRIIAL CASE

Hungary, Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court of Hungary), 21/2014. (VII. 15.) AB, constitutional, 7 July 2014

Deciding court: Constitutional Court of Hungary
Topic:  accountability
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): no
ECtHR jurisprudence: no
TRIIAL CASE
Slovenia, The Ethics and Integrity Commission, Decision Su Ek 7/2023-10 of 16 January 2024 – Are retired judges bound by judicial ethics?
Deciding court: Ethics and Integrity Commission of the Judicial Council of the Republic of Slovenia
Topic: Independence, accountability, impartiality, freedom of expression
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A
TRIIAL CASE
Poland, Supreme Court - Chamber of Professional Liability, II ZOW 39/22
Deciding court: Supreme Court
Topic: Accountability
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: Not indicated
TRIIAL CASE
Poland, Supreme Court of Poland, II CSKP 556/22, Supreme, October 26, 2022
Deciding court: Supreme Court
Topic: independence, accountability, impartiality
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The case discusses and references decisions by the ECtHR as well as the jurisprudence of the CJEU. Specifically, the judgment mentions the ECtHR rulings related to the legitimacy of the judicial appointments in Poland and their impact on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary(e.g. Reczkowicz v. Poland, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, Advance Pharma Sp. z o.o. v. Poland). Moreover, it also discusses the CJEU ruling that interprets EU law concerning judicial independence (Case C-487/19). However, while the Polish Supreme Court's decision in this case heavily references and is influenced by these European courts' decisions, it is not a direct follow-up to a specific CJEU or ECtHR decision.
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.
TRIIAL CASE
Spain, Supreme Court, nº822/2023, 19 June 2023
Deciding court: Supreme Court
Topic:  independence, accountability
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): NO
ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 6.1 ECHR
TRIIAL CASE
Slovenia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Judgment U 4/2021-25, supreme, 12 July 2021, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:U.4.2021.25
Deciding court: Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia
Topic: independence and accountability
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, App. no. 21722/11, 27. 5. 2013Denisov v. Ukraine, App. no. 76639/11, 25. 9. 2018Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bolgaria, App. no. 43800/12, 15. 9. 2015Harabin v. Slovakia, App. no. 58688/11, 20. 11. 2012Olujić v. Croatia, App no. 22330/05, 5. 5. 2009Baka v. Hungary, App no. 20261/12, 23. 6. 2016
TRIIAL CASE
Czech Republic, Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court), 13 Kss 2/2020-146, ordinary, 5. 11. 2020
Deciding court: Supreme Administrative Court
Topic: Accountability
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: Art. 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights
TRIIAL CASE
Slovenia, Judicial Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision Su 12/2023-13, instance: ordinary, 11 May 2023
Deciding court: Judicial Council of the Republic of Slovenia
Topic:  Independence, accountability, impartiality, freedom of expression
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A
ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A
TRIIAL CASE
Slovenia, Constitutional Court, U-I-445/18, 14 October 2021, ECLI:SI:USRS:2021:U.I.445.18
Deciding court: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia
Topic: Independence (removal of magistrates, legal remedies for individual judges against dismissal decisions), accountability (Councils of the judiciary)
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): VSRS Judgement and Order, no. U 2/2018-17 of 14 December 2021
ECtHR jurisprudence: Olujić v the Republic of Croatia, app. no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009,Fey v Austria, app. no. 14396/88, 24 February 1993,Ferrantelli and Santangelo v Italy, app. no. 19874/92, 7 August 1996, Švarc and Kavnik v Slovenia, app. no. 75617/01, 8 February 2007, Pullar v the United Kingdom, app. no. 22399/93, 10 June 1996, Mitrinovski v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, app. no. 6899/12, 30 April 2015, Piersack v Belgium, app. no. 8692/79, 1 October 1982, Grieves v the United Kingdom, app. no. 57067/00, 16 October 2003, Miller and Others v the United Kingdom, app. nos. 45825/99, 45826/99 and 45827/99, 26 October 2004,Kyprianou v Cyprus, app. no. 73797/01,15 December 2005, Puolitaival and Pirttiaho v Finland, app. no. 54857/00, 23 November 2004,Mežnarič v Croatia, app. no. 71615/01,15 July 2005,Daktaras v Lithuania, app. no. 42095/98, 10 October 2000.
Total Row: 50 / View:
Page:
 
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union
© European University Institute 2019
Villa Schifanoia - Via Boccaccio 121, I-50133 Firenze - Italy