CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 mars 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. 73 March 2005 Brudnicka and Others v. Poland - 54723/00 Judgment 3.3.2005 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Independence and impartiality of maritime disputes divisions: violation   Facts : Following the sinking of a ferry, proceedings to establish the causes of the accident were conducted before several maritime disputes divisions, which were under the jurisdiction of the maritime authorities. Among the causes of the shipwreck and the ensuing deaths, the maritime disputes divisions found that there had been negligence on the part of the crew. The applicants were the relatives of sailors who died in the shipwreck; they were parties to the domestic proceedings. Law : Article   6 § 1 – The respondent Government disputed that the applicants were victims, as their relatives, the sailors, had not been held individually liable in the decisions complained of. The Court considered that the proceedings had not solely concerned the sailors’ liability and the question whether each of them individually had been negligent. The proceedings had been directed at the whole crew. The Court considered that whether a person was a victim did not depend solely on whether his or her reputation had been found to have been injured. The mere possibility that a person’s good reputation had been called into question entitled anybody to defend it. The Court also held that the Convention’s applicability in the present case should not depend on a finding of negligence for each crew member separately. It noted that in the final decision of the maritime appeals division liability had been attributed to the crew as a whole. The applicants, as heirs of the sailors who had died in the shipwreck, could claim to be victims within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention of the alleged violation. As the proceedings had concerned the right of the shipwreck victims to a good reputation, Article   6 was applicable in its civil aspect. The members of the maritime disputes divisions (the president and vice-president) were appointed and removed from office by the Minister of Justice, with the agreement of the Minister for Maritime Affairs. Consequently, they could not be considered irremovable and the relationship between them and the ministers was one of hierarchical subordination. The applicants could have had objectively founded doubts about their independence and impartiality. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court awarded each of the applicants a specified sum 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