CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7E6F78FC { width:101.28pt; display:inline-block } .s232C89E { width:55.53pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 October 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10716/25 Ivan MĚRKA against the Czech Republic lodged on 31 March 2025 communicated on 30 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the alleged lack of impartiality, both from the subjective and objective points of view, of the court deciding on the applicant’s compensation claim, on account of professional ties between the single judge and the defendant’s lawyer. The latter had previously been a judge at the same court, and also the single judge’s superior for several years. Furthermore, he had supervised his doctoral thesis, co-authored a publication and held joint lectures with him. In his nullity plea lodged after the compensation proceedings on account of the alleged lack of impartiality for the reasons stated above, the applicant also voiced a suspicion of conspiration in assigning his case to the allegedly biased judge, arguing that the original judge had unlawfully recused himself from the case. The first instance court held that the nullity plea was inadmissible partly as outside of the court’s jurisdiction and partly as belated. The appellate court disagreed with that conclusion but nevertheless dismissed the nullity plea, finding the applicant’s objections unjustified. The Supreme Court endorsed the appellate court’s conclusion. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining that he had been denied an impartial tribunal. He further submitted that the nullity proceedings were not fair and did not dispel his doubts as to the single judge’s bias. In its judgment no. IV. ÚS 2404/23, delivered to the applicant on 4 December 2024, the Constitutional Court found no violation of his rights, holding that his fears of the single judge’s bias were not objectively justified. Before the Court, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 about having been denied an impartial tribunal on account of close professional ties between the single judge deciding on his compensation claim and the defendant’s lawyer. He further argues that Czech law does not contain sufficient safeguards against the removal of a lawful judge and assignment of a biased judge.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   In the light of the applicant’s allegations of the lack of impartiality of the first-instance court’s single judge sitting in his compensation case, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on this account (see   Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein , no. 63151/00, §§ 38-50, 19 May 2005, and Suren Antonyan v. Armenia , no. 20140/23, §§ 132-143, 23 January 2025)?