CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 février 1993

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 No. February 1993 Fey v. Austria - 14396/88 Judgment 24.2.1993 Article 6 Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Criminal case tried by District Court which had taken certain pre-trial measures, including preliminary inquiries, in the same case: no 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.] Subjective test: personal impartiality of District Court judge not disputed. Objective test: before referral of case for reasons of jurisdiction to District Court, preliminary investigation had already been carried out by Regional Court; at that stage District Court judge had questioned witness under rogatory letter, but her task was not to examine merits of accusations against applicant and she did not appear to have done so; no indication that she would later try the case - after referral, the judge carried out certain preliminary inquiries designed to complete case-file before hearing - her decision to set case down for trial not the equivalent of formal committal of accused for trial - she was faced with applicant for first time at hearing, when both he and witness were heard and all the evidence was presented - having regard to extent and nature of pre-trial measures, applicant's fears as to judge's impartiality not found to be objectively justified. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two).   © 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