“Tribunal”
The institutions, i.e., the bodies that issue certain decisions, and which are not courts in the classic sense of the word, may be perceived as tribunals within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the ECHR, provided they fulfil the requisite characteristics of a tribunal. Several of these appear in the text of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR itself. Thus, such a tribunal is characterised in the substantive sense of the term by its judicial function, that is to say determining matters within its competence on the basis of the rules of law and after proceedings conducted in a prescribed manner. In addition, such a body must also meet the requirements of independence, in particular from the executive, and of impartiality.1119 The notion “independent” refers to the relations between a court and judges. The notion “impartial” refers to the relations between judges and parties to the proceedings. A body i.e., a tribunal that takes a decision must not be biased as regards the subject matter of the decision; it must not be under outside pressure either from the public or some other factors. The court has to build its position on the basis of evidence presented in the proceedings and facts established in this manner. The fact that the judge is guided by his personal motives and his perception of a certain matter must not affect his personal opinion.1120 Besides independence and impartiality, it is necessary to satisfy a series of further requirements, including the duration of its members’ terms of office and guarantees afforded by its procedure.1121 When the proceedings before an adjudicatory body fail, with regards to its quality as “a tribunal”, to comply fully with the requirements, such defects may be cured if those proceedings are subject to subsequent control (review) by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR.1122 Where an institution adopts the governing codes, rules, regulations, and guidelines in the relevant field and, at the same time, interprets and applies them to individual cases without the possibility of any appeal to an independent external tribunal with full jurisdiction, this structure lacks the appearance of independence and impartiality required for a tribunal, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the ECHR.1123
Footnotes
CH/01/7248-A&M, paragraph 212 with reference to ECtHR, Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, paragraph 64.
U 47/03, paragraph 23 with reference to ECtHR, Boeckmans v. Belgium, 8 Yearbook of the ECtHR, 410 at 412 (1963).
CH/01/7248-A&M, paragraph 212 with reference to ECtHR, Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, paragraph 64.
CH/01/7248-A&M, paragraph 215 with reference to ECtHR, Bryan v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335, paragraph 40, and Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268, pp. 29-30.
CH/01/7248-A&M, paragraph 218 with reference to the proceedings before the Communications Regulatory Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, upheld also in CH/01/8590 et al.-A&M, paragraph 66; compare, also, Concurring Opinion of Judges Picard and Grotrian with reference to the Decision in Case No. CH/01/7248- A&M, underling the structural defects, as well as the Dissenting Opinion of Judges Nowak and Rauschning with reference to ECtHR, H. v. Belgium, 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-M, paragraph 50, according to which an institution cannot have the quality of a tribunal if it concurrently holds several state powers.