CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 octobre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 123 October 2009 Pandjikidze and Others v. Georgia - 30323/02 Judgment 27.10.2009 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Tribunal established by law Inclusion without sufficient legal basis of lay judges on bench of criminal court: violation   Facts – By a judgment of 2001, the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, sitting as a bench of one professional judge and two lay judges, convicted the applicants of high treason in the form of a plot against the constitutional order; one of them was further convicted of the unlawful purchase and handling of weapons. They were each sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. In 2002 the Criminal Division, sitting as a bench of three professional judges, upheld that judgment. Law – Article 6 § 1: Until the abolition of the office in question in 2005, the lay judges at the Georgian Supreme Court were individuals from other professions who were invited to take part, alongside a professional judge, in considering criminal cases examined at first instance by that court. They fulfilled those judicial duties as part of their civic duties. While the existence of the bench of the Criminal Division that had ruled in this case was provided for by the law in force, this did not suffice to confer on that judicial bench the status of a tribunal that was “established by law”. The question arose whether the exercise by lay judges of judicial duties had had a sufficient legal basis in domestic law. The two relevant texts governing the exercise of the functions of lay judges – the Status of Judges Act and the Amending Act of 1999 – had already been abrogated at the time of the events under dispute, but had not been replaced by any other text. In short, the two lay judges who sat in the applicants’ case had been required to dispense justice on an equal footing with the professional judge and, in view of their number, held the majority of votes necessary to determine the merits of a criminal charge. In so far as the exercise of their functions as judge resulted from a judicial practice that did not have a sufficient legal basis in domestic law, the bench on which they sat had not constituted a “tribunal established by law”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: 2,000 EUR 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