CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2019
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-193665
- Date
- 16 mai 2019
- Publication
- 16 mai 2019
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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 16 May 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22458/18 Štefica KALČIĆEK against Croatia lodged on 4 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of aiding in the commission of the offences of abuse of office and official authority and tampering with evidence. The first-instance court acquitted the applicant. Upon the State Attorney’s appeal, the second ‑ instance court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination. Judge B.B. was a member of the second ‑ instance panel deciding the appeal. In the retrial proceedings the applicant was found guilty as charged. She lodged a constitutional complaint which had been declared inadmissible. Judge B.B. was a member of the Constitutional Court’s panel deciding the applicant’s constitutional complaint. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the Constitutional Court impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the participation of judge B.B. in the trial against the applicant at the second-instance (see Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) , 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204; Castillo Algar v. Spain , 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII and Gómez de Liaño y Botella v.   Spain , no. 21369/04, 22 July 2008)?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 16 mai 2019
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-193665
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel