CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 août 2003

.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 56 September 2003 Filippini v. San Marino (dec.) - 10526/02 Decision 26.8.2003 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Appointment of judges by Parliament: inadmissible The applicant, who was prosecuted for defamation, was sentenced to a fine. He claimed that the fact that the San Marino judges were appointed by Parliament meant that his case could not be examined by an independent and impartial tribunal. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The fact that the judges are elected by Parliament does not affect their independence if it is clear from their status that, once appointed, they are not subject to any pressure and receive no instructions from the Parliament and that they act in complete independence. The San Marino law in question defines the status of the judges in that sense. The sole fact that the judges are appointed by Parliament does not justify the conclusion that Parliament issues instructions to the judges in the context of their judicial powers. In the present case, there is no objective reason to suspect that the judges dealing with the matter did not act consistently with their legal status. The applicant has not alleged that the judges concerned acted under instructions or showed bias. Political sympathies, which may play a part in the process of appointing judges, cannot in themselves give rise to legitimate doubts as to their independence and their impartiality: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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