CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 novembre 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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. November 1993 Holm v. Sweden - 14191/88 Judgment 25.11.1993 Article 6 Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Composition of a jury in defamation proceedings instituted by a private prosecutor before a District Court: 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 Independence and impartiality, vis-à-vis private prosecutor, of District Court sitting with a jury. Subjective impartiality of jury members in question not disputed. Independence and objective impartiality: fact that defendants given benefit of certain safeguards, typical of a criminal trial involving a jury, not available to applicant as a private prosecutor did not as such   constitute legitimate reason to fear lack of independence and impartiality - however, there were   connections between the defendants and the jurors in question: the latter were active members of the Swedish Social Democratic Workers Party ("SAP"), who held or had held offices in or on behalf of SAP; one of the defendants, a publishing house, was indirectly owned by SAP; and the other defendant was employed by that company and had been ideological adviser to SAP - the impugned passages of the book were clearly of political nature and undoubtedly raised matters of concern to SAP - applicant's fears as to independence and impartiality of District Court were therefore objectively justified - this defect could not have been cured by an appeal. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a breach sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Legal costs: partial reimbursement awarded. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant (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