CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 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 } .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 } Published on 7 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3106/24 Massimiliano SIMONCINI against San Marino lodged on 20 January 2024 communicated on 17 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, who is a member of the San Marino judiciary. The proceedings were conducted, pursuant to Constitutional Law no.   1/2021, before the Judicial Council ( Consiglio Giudiziario ) which, by decision of 13 July 2023, established the applicant’s disciplinary liability and issued a warning. The applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court ( Collegio garante della costituzionalità delle norme ), as provided by Section 16   §   10 of Constitutional Law no. 1/2021. By a decree of 12 September 2023, the President of the Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible because the applicant was not represented by a lawyer as required by Section 9 § 1 of Qualified Law no.   55/2003. On 15 September, a lawyer appointed by the applicant filed a brief, with the declared purpose of formally confirming the applicant’s appeal and curing its initial lack of representation. By a decree of 22 September 2023, the President of the Constitutional Court confirmed the inadmissibility of the appeal, stating that the lawyer’s brief had been filed after the expiry of the thirty days’ time-limit for appeal. The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complains that the issuance of the decision by the President of the Constitutional Court in a single-judge formation, rather than by the panel, breached the requirement that his claims should be determined by a “tribunal established by law”. He further complained of an insufficient reasoning of the decree of 22   September 2023, insofar as it did not address the possibility of curing the initial lack of representation by the subsequent appointment of a lawyer. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the composition of the Constitutional Court deciding on the applicant’s case established by the law, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pasquini v. San Marino , no. 50956/16, §§ 101 and 107, 2   May 2019; Momčilović v. Serbia , no. 23103/07, §§ 30-33, 2   April   2013; and Jenița Mocanu v. Romania , no. 11770/08, §§ 38 and 41, 17   December 2013)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the decree of 22 September 2023 sufficiently reasoned in respect of the arguments which were decisive for the outcome of the appeal ( Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §   84, 11   July 2017)?