CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 juin 2007

.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. 98 June 2007 Tocono and Profesorii Prometeişti v. Moldova - 32263/03 Judgment 26.6.2007 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Lack of impartiality of a Supreme Court judge whose son had been expelled from a school run by one of the parties to the dispute: violation   Facts : During an application for the registration of a private school, a dispute arose between rival groups who wished to be registered as the school's founders. The case went to the Supreme Court of Justice, which overturned the judgment of the court of appeal and ruled against the applicants. The panel of the Supreme Court which heard the appeal included a judge whose son had been expelled from the school three years earlier by, inter alia , teachers from one of the applicant entities. The judge had allegedly threatened the school authorities with retaliation. The applicants did not learn of the composition of the panel until the day of the hearing. They complained of a lack of impartiality. Law :   It was not disputed that three years before the hearing in the Supreme Court, the judge's son had been expelled from the school and the judge had threatened the school authorities with retaliation. Under domestic law he was under a duty to inform the parties of a possible incompatibility. The Convention also imposed an obligation on every domestic court to check whether, as constituted, it was an “impartial tribunal”. In the circumstances, the applicants' fears concerning the judge's impartiality were objectively justified. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 3,000 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