CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 juin 2016

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 197 June 2016 Mitrov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - 45959/09 Judgment 2.6.2016 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Criminal trial conducted by a court where victim’s mother worked as a judge: violation Facts – Following a road-traffic accident in which a young woman died, the applicant was charged with “severe crimes against the safety of people and property in traffic”. As the victim of the accident was the daughter of M.A., the president of the criminal section of the trial court, the applicant applied, inter alia , for his case to be transferred to another court. However, his request was refused after the judges assigned to try his case stated that they would not be influenced by the fact that the victim was the daughter of a colleague. M.A. did not sit at the trial, but had victim status as the deceased’s mother in the proceedings. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment. His conviction was upheld on appeal. In the Convention proceedings, he complained under Article 6 § 1 of a lack of impartiality. Law – Article 6 § 1: At the relevant time there were only four judges, including M.A., in the criminal section of the trial court. They were all full-time and had similar functions. It could not therefore be excluded that personal links had come to exist between them. The nature of those personal links was of importance when determining whether the applicant’s fears of a lack of impartiality were objectively justified. The judge who presided over the trial (C.K.) had worked with M.A. for at least two and a half years and had previously worked for her as a clerk. The Court also attached significant weight to the importance of the proceedings to M.A., who had lost her eighteen-year old daughter. It was also relevant that M.A. had victim status in the proceedings and had lodged a compensation claim against the applicant’s insurance company, which was subsequently decided on the merits by the same panel of judges that determined the applicant’s guilt. In these circumstances, the fact that C.K. had presided over the panel which decided the applicant’s guilt prompted objectively justified doubts as to her impartiality. Similar considerations applied in respect of all the judges in the trial court. It was also relevant that the domestic law provided for the possibility of transferring a case to another competent court and that it was not disputed that that practice had been followed in similar circumstances. The applicant’s fears as to the impartiality of the trial court could thus have been considered objectively justified. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © 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