CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   588 21.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LUKA v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Luka v. Romania (application no. 34197/02) concerning an employment dispute in which lay judges sat.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a double violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the lack of impartiality and independence of the tribunal and the failure to address a ground of appeal submitted by the applicant.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Gusztav Luka, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Târgu-Mureş (Romania). After being dismissed in 1999 by the company for which he had been working as one of the managers and head of the IT department, he brought an action to have that decision set aside, also seeking damages. The courts found in his favour in both respects in 2000, but there ensued several further sets of proceedings until 2003 relating to the calculation of the damages and the execution of the decision. In the course of those proceedings, Mr Luka referred on appeal to the case-law of the Constitutional Court in arguing that the composition of the tribunal examining his case (the Târgu-Mureş Court of First Instance) was unconstitutional because it included lay judges (“judicial assistants”). He was reinstated on his post in September 2003 and apparently received the sums owed to him in 2000.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 August 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Luka’s two main complaints were raised under Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). He submitted that the courts hearing his case had been neither impartial nor independent because they had included lay judges. He also complained that his ground of appeal concerning the alleged unconstitutionality of the tribunal in his case had not been addressed.   Decision of the Court   Alleged lack of impartiality and independence of the courts   The Court did not deny the advantage of courts composed of a mixture of professional and lay judges in fields where the experience of the latter was necessary to determine specific questions that could arise in such matters. This system, which existed in a number of States Parties to the Convention, was not in itself contrary to the Convention. However, the role and duties of the “judicial assistants”, as laid down in Romanian legislation at the relevant time, had made them vulnerable to outside pressure. The domestic law had not afforded sufficient guarantees as to their independence in the performance of their duties. Among other things, they had not been irremovable or protected against the premature termination of their duties, and they could discharge other functions and activities assigned to them by the organisations on whose behalf they had been elected (employers’ associations and trade unions).   Since Mr Luka’s concerns about the tribunal’s lack of independence and impartiality were objectively justified, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Alleged failure to address the applicant’s ground of appeal   The courts were required to undertake a careful examination of the parties’ submissions, addressing those which were relevant and had an effect on the outcome of the case. The Court considered that the ground submitted by Mr Luka had been relevant to the outcome of the case as it had been based on a decision of the Constitutional Court (which was thus binding on all authorities) along the same lines. It could also have had an effect on the outcome of the case, as the Court of Appeal was empowered to review all aspects of the case. The ground submitted had therefore required a specific and express reply. In the absence of such a reply, it was impossible to know whether the Court of Appeal had simply neglected the ground of appeal or decided not to examine it and, if so, why.   The Court noted that the Romanian legislation had been amended: in cases of this kind, professional judges were now assisted by “consultant judges”, whose role was purely advisory. However, the change had taken place after the impugned judgment of the Court of Appeal, so that even if the applicant’s appeal had been allowed, at the time that would not have been sufficient to grant a rehearing of his case in conformity with the Convention.   The Court found a further violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.