CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 6 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16472/20 Peter KODRIČ against Slovenia lodged on 24 March 2020 communicated on 15 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the proceedings in which the applicant’s application to be included in the list of attorney candidates was dismissed. On 11   November 2014 the Bar Association’s administrative board dismissed the aforementioned application finding that the applicant was not a person considered worthy of public trust under the Attorneys Act because, apart from the fact that he was under personal bankruptcy, he had abused his office as a customs administration officer in 1997. One of the members of the Bar Association’s administrative board that decided on the applicant’s application was R.Č. Following the applicant’s unsuccessful challenges of the Bar Association’s decision before the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. On 15   November 2019 the Constitutional Court in a three-judge panel, which included R.Č. (who had in the meantime become a Constitutional Court judge), decided not to accept the applicant’s constitutional complaint for consideration. The decision was taken   in camera   and without the attendance of the applicant.   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his case was not heard by an impartial tribunal because the Constitutional Court’s panel which decided on his constitutional complaint included judge R.Č. who had also been a member of the Bar Association’s body that had dismissed his application to be included in the list of attorney candidates. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the involvement of R.Č. in the proceedings before the Bar Association concerning the applicant’s application to be included in the list of attorney candidates, could the Constitutional Court panel of which R.Č. was a member and which dealt with the applicant’s subsequent constitutional appeal be considered impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia , no. 50996/08, §§ 29 and 39 to 41, 5 June 2014; Švarc and Kavnik v. Slovenia , no. 75617/01, §§   40-44, 8 February 2007, and Peruš v. Slovenia , no. 35016/05, § 38, 27   September 2012)?