CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 4 October 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 7490/16 Adrian-Cristinel BĂDEANU against Romania lodged on 15 January 2016 communicated on 16 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of a judge who took part in the criminal proceedings against the applicant both before the court of first instance and delivering the final judgment on appeal. Before the court of first instance, the judge in question took decisions concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention but also concerning admission of evidence and of an additional charge against the applicant. The same judge also took part in the panel of the Iași Court of Appeal who examined the applicant’s appeal against the measures taken and the decision adopted by the court of first instance and delivered the final judgment in the case. The applicant’s challenge for bias lodged before the court of appeal was rejected with the sole reasoning that no reason for bias could be found. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that judge C.G.T. sitting on the appeal panel dealing with his case had not been impartial. He also alleged that his challenge for bias against this judge had been rejected with a formalistic wording.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the participation of judge C.G.T. both in the proceedings before the court of first instance and on appeal and to the alleged formalistic wording of the rejection of the applicant’s challenge for bias against this judge, was the panel which heard the applicant’s appeal against his conviction an “impartial tribunal” within the meaning of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?