CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 novembre 2006

.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. 91 November 2006 Belukha v. Ukraine - 33949/02 Judgment 9.11.2006 [Section V] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Impartiality of court and its president who had accepted favours from applicant's opponent without payment: violation   Facts : The applicant instituted proceedings before a town court seeking reinstatement to her former post, but to no avail. During the proceedings she unsuccessfully challenged the judge and the court, claiming that they lacked impartiality as the defendant company had carried out work in the court's new building free of charge and had provided certain goods to the court due to unofficial relations between the court's President and the company's management. Law : The Government did not contest the applicant's submissions that the President of the town court, who sat alone as a first instance judge in the applicant's case, and whose decision was upheld by the higher courts, had demanded and accepted certain assets from the defendant company for free. In those circumstances the applicant's fears that the President lacked impartiality could be held to be objectively justified, notwithstanding the fact that the town court had allowed one of her claims. Moreover, the higher courts, in dealing with the applicant's appeals, disregarded her submissions to this effect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for 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