CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 13 July 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 1128/17 Salina MENG against Germany lodged on 27 December 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impartiality of the Darmstadt Regional Court in criminal proceedings against the applicant, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. The presiding judge in the proceedings against the applicant, who had been charged with, and on 9 April 2014 was convicted of, murder of her husband out of greed, jointly committed with G.S., had previously been the judge rapporteur in the criminal proceedings against G.S., whom the Regional Court, on 11 July 2011, had convicted of murder of the applicant’s husband out of greed (as a single perpetrator). That latter judgment contained numerous references to the applicant, inter alia , with regard to the joint plan drawn up by her and G.S. for the killing of the applicant’s husband and her contributions to the crime. On 10 February 2016 the Federal Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law, which had been based, inter alia , on a lack of impartiality of the presiding judge in the proceedings against her, given that he had been the judge rapporteur in the proceedings against G.S and that the Regional Court’s judgment convicting G.S. had contained numerous references to the applicant as well as findings which prejudged the question of her guilt regarding the criminal offence in question. On 11 July 2016 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint without providing reasons. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s right to a fair trial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected in the criminal proceedings against her before the Darmstadt Regional Court? In particular, was that court, which tried and convicted the applicant of murder of her husband out of greed, jointly committed with G.S., impartial, in light of, in particular, the presiding judge’s involvement in the previous criminal proceedings against G.S. and the references to the applicant in the Regional Court’s judgment convicting G.S.? Did that latter judgment contain findings which indicated that the question of the applicant’s guilt regarding the murder of her husband had been prejudged?