CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 avril 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. April 1994 Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal - 15651/89 Judgment 22.4.1994 Article 6 Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Conviction by a court presided over by the judge who had earlier, as the judge responsible for the case, delivered the despacho de pronúncia: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] Reiteration of Court's case-law on concept of "impartial" tribunal. Subjective test: personal impartiality of the judge not disputed. Objective test: the despacho de pronúncia an intermediate decision not equivalent to a committal for trial, as the judge takes no steps in the investigation or the prosecution and confines himself, in the initial phase of the proceedings, to satisfying himself that there is prima facie evidence - decision to leave an accused in pre-trial detention can only justify doubts concerning a judge's impartiality in special circumstances, which did not obtain in the instant case - applicant's doubts not objectively justified. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes