CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } Published on 8 November 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 44681/21 Zurab TSULUKIDZE against Georgia lodged on 10 August 2021 communicated on 14 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of judge L.M. who was sitting on a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court which ruled against the applicant in proceedings he had brought against his former employer. The applicant challenged Judge L.M., claiming that he was not impartial on account of the fact that his judicial assistant was the son of the lawyer representing the respondent company and that he was directly involved in assisting Judge L.M. in the preparation of the applicant’s case. The application for Judge L.M.’s recusal was dismissed as unsubstantiated, with the relevant panel ruling that the circumstances referred to in the application were insufficient for questioning Judge L.M.’s impartiality. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the applicant’s relevant allegations concerning the judicial assistant of Judge L.M., was the panel of the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial (see Morice v. France [GC], no.   29369/10, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2015; Bellizzi v. Malta , no. 46575/09, §§   57-62, 21 June 2011; Nikolov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 41195/02, §§ 19-27, 20 December 2007; see also Mitrov v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 45959/09, § 54, 2 June 2016)?   The Government are requested to submit details of the functions of the judicial assistants and to explain what specific role the judicial assistant had in the proceedings at issue.