CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 juillet 2005

.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. 77 July-August 2005 Mežnarić v. Croatia - 71615/01 Judgment 15.7.2005 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Examination of a constitutional complaint by a judge who had previously acted as legal counsel of the applicants' opponents in the principal proceedings: violation   Facts : The applicant was the defendant party in civil proceedings brought against him by two plaintiffs which sought damages for breach of contract. The domestic courts, at two instances, gave judgment for the plaintiffs. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court and subsequently submitted a constitutional complaint. Both complaints were dismissed. One of the judges sitting on the Constitutional Court's panel which delivered the court's decision had shortly acted as legal counsel of the plaintiffs in the early stages of the proceedings. His daughter, who had taken over her father's law practice, later replaced him as the applicants' counsel. Law : Article 6(1) – Concerning the subjective impartiality test, there was nothing to indicate personal bias on the part of the judge who had represented the applicants' opponents at an earlier stage. In considering whether there were legitimate reasons to fear lack of impartiality as being objectively justified, it was necessary to recall the fact that a judge which had acted in different capacities in the same case could in certain circumstances compromise a tribunal's impartiality. The impugned judge's previous involvement in the case had been minor and remote, as he had represented the applicant's opponents for only two months and almost nine years before the decision of the Constitutional Court. However, he had carried out a dual role in the case: first, as counsel to the plaintiffs in the principal proceedings, and, subsequently, adjudicating on the constitutionality of the applicant's complaint. This dual role in a single set of proceedings, reinforced by his daughter's involvement also as counsel to the plaintiff's, created a situation which was capable of raising legitimate doubts as the judge's impartiality. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Court also made an award for costs and expenses.   © 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