CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 3 January 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 55509/18 KAYAT TRADING LIMITED against Cyprus lodged on 20 November 2018 communicated on 10 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge N. who was sitting on a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court which dismissed the applicant company’s appeal (no. 200/14), and partly allowed a cross-appeal (no. 199/2014) made by the respondent company. According to the applicant the daughter and son-in-law of Judge N. worked in the law firm which represented the respondent company. The applicant was allegedly informed of this after the end of the appeal proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant’s case objectively impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that the daughter and son-in-law of Judge N., one of the judges on the bench, worked for the firm of the respondent company’s lawyer (see, Koulias v. Cyprus , no.   48781/12, §§ 61-64, 26 May 2020, and Nicholas v. Cyprus , no. 63246/10, §§   62-64, 9 January 2018)?