CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 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 Pabla Ky v. Finland - 47221/99 Judgment 22.6.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independence and impartiality of a judge who was also a Member of Parliament: no violation Facts : The applicant was a company running a restaurant on rented premises. Following the completion of renovation works agreed between the parties, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the owner of the premises since it considered the works were unsatisfactory. The District Court rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. One of the members of the Court of Appeal, M.P., was also a Member of the Finnish Parliament at the time (he had been acting as an expert member of that court since 1974). The applicant complained to the Supreme Court, inter alia , about the lack of independence of judge M.P.   The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Law : Article 6 § 1 – As there was no indication that M.P. was subjectively biased against the applicant, the only question was whether his position as a member of the legislature could cast a legitimate doubt on the objective impartiality of the Court of Appeal. The Court recalled that there was no objection per se to an expert lay member forming part of a given court. Contrary to what the applicant had alleged, M.P.’s membership of a particular political party had no connection or link with any of the parties or the substance of the case. Neither had M.P. exercised any prior legislative or advisory functions in respect of the case before the Court of Appeal. Hence, the Court was not persuaded that the mere fact that M.P. was a member of the legislature at the time when he sat on the applicant’s appeal was sufficient to raise doubts on the independence and impartiality of the Court of Appeal. The applicant’s fears in this respect could not therefore be regarded as objectively justified. Conclusion : no violation (6 votes to 1).   © 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