CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 7636/08 Zenija UPĪTE against Latvia lodged on 8 January 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicant, Ms Ženija Upīte, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Rīga. She is represented before the Court by Mr   D.   Skačkovs, a lawyer practising in Rīga. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The events leading to the complaint at issue 3.     In 2007 a book called “Kitchen of Litigation” ( Tiesāšanās kā ķēķis ) was published, and it contained transcripts of allegedly authentic phone conversations between one of the most known lawyers in Latvia and judges working in various courts in Latvia, including the judges of the Senate of the Supreme Court. The allegedly unlawful and unethical activities in the judiciary provoked considerable public debate. The Supreme Court, the Parliament and the Prosecutor General launched a joint investigation including into possible disciplinary violations of the Code of Ethics of Judges. 4.     On 30   November   2007 the working group in charge of the investigation into alleged ethical violations concluded inter alia that the judge O.D.J., a senator of the Senate of the Supreme Court whose conversations with the lawyer were published in the book, had not violated the Code of Ethics: “...[12.5] In his submissions [5.5] O.D.J. did not deny that he might have had conversation [with the lawyer] but that they concerned only the German compensations, whereas in those cases [the lawyer] was not representing any of the parties, and therefore the working group concluded that O.D.J. had not violated the Code of Ethics” [1] . B.     Civil proceedings concerned 5.     In 2004 the applicant together with another person brought a civil claim against B. In 2005 their claim was upheld but later quashed by the court of cassation. After examining the claim de novo , on 21   November   2006 the applicant’s claim was dismissed. At a later stage of the proceedings other procedural decisions concerning interim measures and legal expenses were adopted. 6.     In June   2007 the Senate of the Supreme Court granted leave to the applicant to appeal on points of law. The hearing before the cassation court was held on 29   August   2007. The Senate was sitting in a composition of three senators, including O.D.J. The applicant’s representative raised objections against judge O.D.J. arguing that the applicant had reasonable doubts about the impartiality of the judge in that the latter’s allegedly unethical behaviour was at that time under investigation. He also alleged that the representative of the defendant B. was a former employee of the Supreme Court. 7.     On 29   August   2007 the other two senators dismissed the objections. They noted that the applicant’s doubts were based only on assumptions and the objection did not contain any evidence to substantiate the applicant’s doubts about the impartiality of O.D.J. in the particular case. On the same day the Senate in part upheld the appellate court’s judgment by which the applicant’s claim was dismissed and in this part it became final. COMPLAINT The applicant complains in substance under Article 6 of the Convention about inter alia the alleged lack of impartiality of the court of cassation which did not accept the applicant’s objections with regard to senator O.D.J.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Taking into consideration the pending investigation into the allegedly unethical activities of senator O.D.J. and that the applicant’s objections to the latter’s participation were dismissed before the outcome of the investigation was published, did the applicant benefit from the right to an impartial tribunal in the cassation proceedings, as required by Article 6   §   1 of the Convention?   [1] http://www.at.gov.lv/files/docs/plenum/darba%20grupas%20zinojums.doc , last visited on 18   December   2012.