CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2022

.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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } Published on 7 February 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34088/17 Ionel ONOFRAȘ against Romania lodged on 2 May 2017 communicated on 19 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of judge I.N.C. who took part in the appeal panel that delivered the final conviction decision in the criminal proceedings against the applicant on 16 December 2016. The judge in question asked to withdraw from the case because his wife had participated as a prosecutor in the proceedings against the applicant before the court of first instance and had also drafted the reasons for appeal on behalf of the prosecution. The request had been rejected by a two-judge panel 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 I.N.C. sitting on the appeal panel dealing with his case had not been impartial. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the participation of judge I.N.C.’s wife as prosecutor in the proceedings before the court of first instance, to the drafting by her of the reasons for appeal and to the alleged formalistic wording of the rejection of the judge’s request for withdrawal, 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? Having regard to the participation of judge I.N.C.’s wife as prosecutor in the proceedings before the court of first instance, to the drafting by her of the reasons for appeal and to the alleged formalistic wording of the rejection of the judge’s request for withdrawal, 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?