CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mai 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 97 May 2007 Vera Fernández-Huidobro v. Spain (dec.) - 74181/01 Decision 2.5.2007 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Personal and political animosity between the applicant and the investigating judge and extensive knowledge of the facts and persons concerned in the trial gained by the investigating judge from other activities:   The applicant was Minister of State for Security in the Ministry of the Interior. Criminal proceedings were brought against him on counts of misappropriation of public funds, holding a person against his will and belonging to an armed group (as well as against police officers who confessed their guilt, see decision Saiz Oceja v . Spain , 74182/01, below). The case concerning the holding of a person against his will was assigned to central investigating judge no. 5 ( “the judge”) of the Audiencia nacional, who had been elected to parliament and appointed Government Delegate for the Ministry of the Interior. The applicant was placed under investigation. He filed a criminal complaint against the judge of the criminal section of the Supreme Court, for torture, threats, coercion and provocation during the investigation, aimed at making him divulge secrets. The Supreme Court dismissed the case. The judge summoned the applicant to appear in court as a suspect. The applicant challenged the judge for bias, it being common knowledge that they were not on good terms with each other, and because the judge had taken part in political activities incompatible with his current position as judge. The challenge was rejected, as was the amparo appeal the applicant lodged with the Constitutional Court against that decision. The applicant was charged at the judge’s request, and appealed. The criminal section of the Audiencia nacional decided to release him on bail. A judge delegated by the criminal section of the Supreme Court was assigned to the case and continued the investigation, heard witnesses for the defence and the prosecution and indicted both the Minister of the Interior and the applicant. The criminal section of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the judge’s indictment. This was confirmed by a decision of the Supreme Court. Once the investigation was completed, the case was sent before the criminal section of the Supreme Court for trial. The applicant was found guilty on several counts, including holding a person against his will. The Minister of the Interior and the applicant were found guilty of misappropriation of public funds. The criminal section of the Supreme Court dismissed the application for the judge to be withdrawn. It rejected the appeal to set aside the decision based on the new grounds for challenging a judge introduced by the organic law, namely when the judge has held a public office in which he might have been able to form an opinion, to the detriment of the requisite impartiality, about the object of the dispute or its cause, or about the parties, their representatives or the defence counsel, as this legislative reform had no retroactive effect. Four of its judges expressed dissenting opinions. The applicant filed an amparo appeal against this judgment with the Constitutional Court. The appeal was declared admissible, but dismissed. The court pointed out that it was not its role to question the courts’ assessment of the evidence, and noted, with detailed reasons, that the decision reached by the criminal section of the Supreme Court could not be considered arbitrary or unreasonable. The ground of lack of impartiality was rejected. One judge expressed a separate opinion. Admissible as regards the complaints of lack of impartiality and the principle of the presumption of innocence. Inadmissible as regards the remainder of the application (length of proceedings).   © 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