CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 octobre 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. October 1998 Castillo Algar v. Spain - 28194/95 Judgment 28.10.1998 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Impartiality of military court two of whose members had previously sat in another chamber to hear appeal against order charging applicant: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government’s preliminary objection (non–exhaustion of domestic remedies: failure to exercise right of challenge) Recapitulation of case–law on exhaustion of domestic remedies rule. In case before Court, complaint of bias had been raised before Supreme Court and subsequently before Constitutional Court – even though no objection had been made before the trial, domestic courts could not be said to have been denied opportunity to put right alleged violation. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of complaint Recapitulation of case–law on notion of impartiality. Subjective test: no evidence that either judge had acted on basis of personal bias. Objective test: in case before Court, fear that trial court was not impartial had stemmed from fact that two judges sitting in it had previously sat in chamber that had upheld order by which applicant had been charged – factors existed that could be taken to mean that chamber had adopted view taken by Supreme Court that “there was sufficient evidence that a military offence had been committed” – situation similar to that in Oberschlick (no. 1) case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage; costs and expenses Pecuniary damage: claim dismissed, no causal link. Non–pecuniary damage: judgment constituted sufficient reparation. Costs and expenses: to be reimbursed. B.   Other claims: Court had no jurisdiction. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sums for costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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