CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } Published on 9 January 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 78528/17 Miguel José MARTINS BARREIRA FERNANDES against Portugal lodged on 3 November 2017 communicated on 14 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a judge. The application concerns disciplinary proceedings lodged against him by the High Council for the Judiciary (Conselho Superior da Magistratura – the “CSM”) which resulted in his dismissal from the judiciary by a decision of 21 December 2015, confirmed by the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court on 22 February 2017. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a breach of his right to a fair trial on account of the lack of a public hearing before the CSM, the limited scope of review of the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court and the fact that he had had no possibility of replying to the written opinion presented by the public prosecutor before the Supreme Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of his civil rights and obligations as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   1.     In view of the circumstances of the case and the questions raised before the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court, did the applicant have a fair and public hearing in the determination of his civil rights in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v.   Portugal [GC], n o   55391/13 and two others, §§   176-92 and 214, 6   November 2018)?   2.     Was the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms observed, given that the applicant did not have an opportunity to comment on the public prosecutor’s written opinion presented before the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court (see Regner v. The Czech Republic [GC], no.   35289/11, §   146, 19 September 2017; Lobo Machado v. Portugal [GC], no. 15764/89, §   31, 20   February 1996; and Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional v.   Portugal , no.   4687/11, §§ 49-52, 17 May 2016 ) ?