CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2023

.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 27 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 46622/21 Ádám NÉMETH against Hungary lodged on 9 September 2021 communicated on 10 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 14 February 2019 the applicant was convicted by final judgment for dealing in psychoactive substances. The judges of the second-instance trial court were the same as the ones who had previously decided on the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The same judges also decided during the second-instance trial on the prolongation of detention. These judges had expressly been mentioned in the bill of indictment as excluded. The applicant’s related constitutional complaint was dismissed on the merits by the Constitutional Court on 9 March 2021 (service: 22 March 2021). The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the repeated participation of the judges in question, in different qualities, was prejudicial to the impartiality requirement. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Romenskiy v. Russia , no.   22875/02, §§ 28-30, 13 June 2013; Jasiński v. Poland , no. 30865/96, §   54-58, 20 December 2005; Hauschildt v. Denmark , 24 May 1989, § 49-52, Series A no. 154)?