CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-181788
- Date
- 2 mars 2018
- Publication
- 2 mars 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 2 March 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 19922/16 Stanko and Patricia MILAS against Croatia lodged on 29 March 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings which the applicants instituted against a company seeking payment of a sum of money. Their claim was dismissed by the domestic courts as unfounded. In their constitutional complaint the applicants alleged that the wife of a Supreme Court judge, who had acted as a judge rapporteur in the proceedings at issue, had been employed at the defendant company while their case had been pending before the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court dismissed their constitutional complaint as unfounded without making any comments on the applicants’ allegations that the Supreme Court judge had been biased. The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they did not have a fair hearing in that the wife of a Supreme Court judge who sat in the panel that heard their appeal on points of law was employed at the defendant company. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the fact that the wife of a Supreme Court judge, who acted as a judge rapporteur in the proceedings at issue, was employed at the defendant company amount to a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 2 mars 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-181788
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel