CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s51B216E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17   September   2013 and 6 October 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 19750/13 Jan GROSAM against the Czech Republic lodged on 13 March 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The original facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s initial Statement of Facts and Questions to the Parties, which is available in HUDOC.   The application was communicated by the President on 17   September   2013. The parties submitted their written observations on admissibility and merits of the case. The Court decided on 6 October 2015 to invite the Government to submit observations on the following question: ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Assuming that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable in the present case, was the applicant’s right to a hearing by “a tribunal established by law” as provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention respected in the present case? In particular: (i) did the disciplinary chamber in the present case meet the requirements of “a tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention taking into account its composition, and did it provide sufficient guarantees of professional judicial expertise; and (ii) did the manner of selection of persons to be included in the list of lay assessors of the disciplinary chamber satisfy the requirements of transparency, clarity and protection against arbitrariness?