CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 février 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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. 94 February 2007 Švarc and Kavnik v. Slovenia - 75617/01 Judgment 8.2.2007 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Impartiality of Constitutional Court judge who had acted as legal expert of the applicant’s opponent in the civil proceedings at first instance: violation   Facts : The applicants were injured in a car accident in Austria which resulted in the premature birth of their son, who later died. The local civil court refused to entertain their claim for damages against an Austrian insurance company on the grounds that the case was not within its jurisdiction. In that connection, a university professor had given an expert opinion on the case at the request of the company. After their unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicants applied to the Constitutional Court. Their appeal was declared inadmissible by a three-judge panel which included the above-mentioned professor and his university colleague, who had in the meantime been appointed to the Constitutional Court. The applicants learned of the composition of the panel when the decision was served on them. Law : At the defendant company’s request, a law professor had delivered an opinion on whether the Slovenian courts had jurisdiction to examine the applicants' claims. The outcome of the impugned proceedings had been in line with this opinion, although the court's decision had made no reference to it. The applicants had not challenged any member of the Constitutional Court while lodging their appeal, nor had they attached the above opinion to the said appeal or referred to it therein. Well over four years had elapsed between the date on which the opinion had been delivered and the date on which the applicants had lodged their constitutional appeal. An additional period of almost three years had passed before the Constitutional Court delivered a decision on the admissibility of the appeal. There was no indication that the judge, a former professor, had either been reminded of his prior involvement in this particular case or that his opinion had been included in the case-file before the Constitutional Court. However, he had had a detailed knowledge of the facts of the case and had been retained by the applicant's adversaries in the proceedings before the first-instance court, essentially as an expert. His role as a justice of the Constitutional Court had been, admittedly, quite different, and had been limited to determining of the admissibility of the applicants' complaints made under the Constitution. Nonetheless, the European Court found that due to his previous involvement in the proceedings, the impartiality of the “tribunal” had been open to doubt, not only in the eyes of the applicants but also objectively. As to his colleague’s alleged partiality, the applicants' fear had had no legitimate ground. She had not been directly involved in the impugned proceedings prior to sitting on the Constitutional Court's bench. The applicants' assertions that she might have had previous knowledge of the case solely by virtue of working at the same law faculty, in close proximity to the judge in question at the material time, had been too vague to procure any objective doubt of her impartiality. Conclusion : violation (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