Published on 4 July 2022
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 24269/18
Georgios STYLIANIDIS
against Cyprus
lodged on 22 May 2018
communicated on 17 June 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s alleged inability to have recourse to judicial review of the decision of the Supreme Council of Judicature refusing to promote him to the post of President of District Court. The Supreme Court refused to consider the applicant’s appeal as not amenable to judicial review, referring to its previous case-law. The application further concerns alleged lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court judges, as according to the applicant the same judges had decided as members of the Supreme Council of Judicature not to promote him.
In this connection, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of his right of access to a court. He further complains, under the same provision, of a breach of his right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 65, 11 December 2018; Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 134-37, 19 December 2017; and Chakkas and others v. Cyprus (dec.), nos. 43331/09, 27877/10 and 36144/11, § 23, 20 October 2015)?
2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, did a right exist in the present case and if so, was it “civil” in nature (see, among many authorities, Grzęda v. Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 257-329, 15 March 2022; Bilgen v. Turkey, no. 1571/07, §§ 47-52, 9 March 2021; Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 100-106, 23 June 2016; and Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, §§ 83-87, 15 September 2015)?
3. If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for general principles, Bilgen v. Turkey, no. 1571/07, §§ 92‑94, 9 March 2021)?
4. Was the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant’s case on appeal independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, §§ 96‑101, 31 October 2017; Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 60-65, 25 September 2018; and Tsanova‑Gecheva, cited above, §§ 106-108)?