CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 avril 2018

.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 217 April 2018 Boyan Gospodinov v. Bulgaria - 28417/07 Judgment 5.4.2018 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Refusal of change of venue for criminal trial despite pending civil action by accused impugning trial court’s conduct: violation Facts – The applicant, who had been sentenced on appeal to a prison term of shorter duration than the time which he had already spent in pre-trial detention, filed an action for damages against the State with another court. The relevant civil proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of a second set of criminal proceedings against him, on the grounds that they might affect the outcome of the dispute. The applicant unsuccessfully applied for a change of venue for the second set of criminal proceedings on the grounds that the criminal court’s involvement in his civil action raised an impartiality issue. He was ultimately sentenced to a further prison term, which, combined with the first sentence, exceeded the duration of his pre-trial detention, leading to the dismissal of his civil action. Law – Article 6 § 1: Even though four judges on the bench of the criminal court hearing the second case had not taken part in the previous criminal proceedings against the applicant, the fact that they were professionally attached to one of the defendants in the concurrent civil proceedings, together with the fact that the latter had been suspended pending the outcome of the second criminal case, gave the applicant sufficient cause for legitimate doubt as to those judges’ objective impartiality. Furthermore, under the relevant budgetary regulations, the possible award to the applicant – had his action for damages been successful – would have had to be paid from the budget of the criminal court in question. Even though it had not been established that that fact had in any way influenced the individual situations of the criminal court judges, it could legitimately have reinforced the applicant’s doubts. Moreover, domestic law – which required judges to withdraw from a criminal case where there was any doubt as to their impartiality, even in cases other than those explicitly mentioned – provided for reassigning the case to another court where all the judges had withdrawn. The applicant’s request to that effect had been dismissed on purely formal grounds, without detailed examination. The applicant also unsuccessfully raised the issue before the two higher courts, that is to say the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation, which had themselves been respondents in the same civil proceedings for damages. By failing to reply to his arguments, those courts had also failed to dispel the legitimate doubt concerning bias on the part of the court of first instance. In short, the court of first instance which had dealt with the second criminal case against the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of objective impartiality, and the higher courts had failed to remedy that situation. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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