CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juin 2016

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 200 October 2016 Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal (referral) - 55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13 Judgment 21.6.2016 [Section IV] Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Public hearing Limited scope of review by Supreme Court of Judicial Services Commission’s decisions in disciplinary proceedings: case referred to the Grand Chamber Three sets of disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant, who was a court judge at the material time. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) imposed a fine and two penalties on her suspending her from duty. Applications by the applicant for a review of the establishment of the facts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the JSC’s decisions, finding among other things that its task was not to review the facts but only to examine whether the establishment of the facts had been reasonable. After grouping together the penalties imposed in the three sets of disciplinary proceedings, the JSC imposed a single penalty on the applicant of 240 days’ suspension from duty. The applicant complained before the European Court of a breach of her right to an independent and impartial tribunal, her right to obtain a review of the facts established by the JSC and her right to a public hearing. In a judgment of 21 June 2016 a Chamber of the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 of the Convention. It found, in particular, that the independence and impartiality of the JSC could be open to doubt; that the review carried out by the Supreme Court in the case of the three judges had been insufficient; and that the domestic authorities had failed to provide the safeguards of a public hearing. On 17 October 2016 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   © 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