CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2024

.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 } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s551036EE { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s70A7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } Published on 4 March 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36862/23 Kostas KONSTANTINOU against Cyprus lodged on 3 October 2023 communicated on 13 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to have recourse to judicial review of the decision refusing to promote him to the post of district court president. The decision was taken by the transitional Supreme Council of Judicature (‘the transitional Council’). The Supreme Constitutional Court acting as Revisional Second Instance Council of Judicature refused to examine the merits of the applicant’s objection against the decision of the transitional Council considering that its jurisdiction over decisions on, inter alia, promotion of judges did not extend to those taken by the transitional Council. The application further concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of the Supreme Constitutional Court, as according to the applicant six out of its nine judges had participated as voting members in the transitional Council. In this connection, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of his right of access to a court in a dispute over the alleged arbitrary decision of the transitional Council not to promote him. 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.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to 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, Stylianidis v. Cyprus (dec.) , no.   24269/18, §§ 36-46, 8 February 2024; Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , no.   24492/21, §§ 39-58, 20 June 2023; Gloveli v. Georgia , no.   18952/18, §§   34-53, 7 April 2022; 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; Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria , no.   43800/12, §§ 83-87, 15 September 2015)?   2.     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,   Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , cited above, §§   64-66, 20 June 2023)?   3.     Was the Supreme Constitutional Court acting as Revisional Second Instance Council of Judicature which dealt with the applicant’s objection against the decision not to be promoted, independent and impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§ 60-65, 25 September 2018; Kamenos v. Cyprus , no.   147/07, §§   96 ‑ 101, 31 October 2017; Tsanova-Gecheva , cited above, §§   106-108, among many authorities)?