CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 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 65 June 2004 Puolitaival and Pirttiaho v. Finland (dec.) - 54857/00 Decision 1.6.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Appeal Court judge having acted as legal counsel against the applicants in earlier proceedings: admissible The applicants were the owners of a company. In 1991, they brought civil proceedings against another company, whose lawyer at the time, P.L., was also a referendaire of the Court of Appeal. The lawyer made harsh submissions against the applicants in those proceedings. In 1992, the applicants initiated another set of civil proceedings against an investment bank. The case was examined by the Court of Appeal in 1993 and again in 1997. Judge P.L. did not take part in the 1993 proceedings, but was a member of the Chamber that dismissed the applicants’ appeal in 1997. The applicants requested the Supreme Court for leave to appeal stating, inter alia , that one of the Court of Appeal judges was partial for having acted as a counsel for the opposing party in previous proceedings. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal after having obtained a statement from judge P.L. in which she declared she did not even remember having acted as counsel to the applicants’ adversary in older proceedings. Admissible under Article 6.   © 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