In the case of Bishop Basil (Osborne) in the UK the right of eccliton was exercised without any conciliar gathering of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Churches. There was no need for such because it was not a judgement of a matter of another Church. Bishop Basil did not seek the matter in the Diocese of Sourozh to be judged by Constantinople, he merely appealed to be received by Constantinople, and he was. Constantinople has not sought to judge the Synod of the Diocese of Sourozh or the Moscow Patriarchate- hence no need for a PanOrthodox Synod.
Previously you presented it not simply as a matter of reception into Constantinople but as a judgement by Constantinople upon an appeal by His Grace Bishop Basil.
You wrote: "Bishop Basil appealed to the Throne of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
which is the right of any clergy in any Patriarchate under the Canons which give
the Ecumenical Patriarchate the right of eccliton (the right to judge clergy of
the other Patriarchates who appeal to her) under Canons 9 & 17 of the Ecumenical
Council of Chalcedon. As a result, he was directed to the Patriarchal Exarchate
for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe."
I am very interested in this. Until you mentioned eccliton in the British Orthodox Church thread I had not been aware of it. Are you saying that the Antiochian hierarchs would not have this right to appeal to the Great Throne?