CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 novembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 69 November 2004 Puolitaival and Pirttiaho v. Finland - 54857/00 Judgment 23.11.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Impartiality of appeal court judge who, in previous civil proceedings brought by the applicants, had acted as legal representative of the opposing party: no violation Facts : The applicants owned a company which brought civil proceedings against an investment bank in February 1992. In December 1992 the District Court refused to examine the claims. In November 1993 the Court of Appeal found that the claims should have been examined and remitted the case to the District Court, which dismissed the claims in April 1997. In August 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal was composed of three judges, including P.L. The applicants’ company requested leave to appeal, on the ground that P.L. was biased, since in previous civil proceedings brought by the company in 1991 the opposing party had been represented by the law firm in which P.L. had at that time been a partner. In particular, she had signed a notice of appeal in those proceedings, which had ended in February 1993. The Supreme Court obtained from P.L. a statement, which was communicated to the applicants for information, on the basis of which it refused leave to appeal. Law : Article 6 § 1 (impartiality) – There was no indication that there was any system in the Court of Appeal to ensure that judges were reminded of their prior involvement in particular cases. However, while observing that there is a risk of problems arising in a system where such matters are left entirely to the judge’s own assessment, the Court pointed out that its task was limited to assessing whether the particular circumstances of the case disclosed any appearance of bias. In that respect, it reiterated that a judge’s dual roles in a given case may in certain circumstances compromise a tribunal’s impartiality. In the present case, however, unlike in the case of Wettstein v. Switzerland (judgment of 21 December 2000), the dual functions had not overlapped in time. The two sets of proceedings had overlapped briefly between February 1992 and February 1993, but had been pending simultaneously before the Court of Appeal only between December 1992 and February 1993. P.L.’s role in the first set of proceedings had been limited to drafting and signing the notice of appeal and there was no indication that she had been active during the latter period. Moreover, she had not participated as a judge in the second set of proceedings during that period or when the Court of Appeal had remitted the case to the District Court in November 1993. In fact, her personal involvement had not begun until after April 1997. Her prior involvement was thus remote in time and in addition the subject matter of the two sets of proceedings was completely different. Consequently, P.L.’s prior involvement gave no reasonable grounds for fearing that she might have a preconceived attitude against the applicants’ company, notwithstanding certain critical remarks in the notice of appeal which she had drafted at the time. Finally, as P.L.’s statement had been communicated to the applicants’ legal representative, there was no indication of any procedural unfairness. In conclusion, the applicants could not have entertained any objectively justified doubts as to P.L.’s impartiality. Conclusion : no violation (5 votes to 2).   © 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