CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 avril 2004

.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 63 April 2004 Cianetti v. Italie - 55634/00 Judgment 22.4.2004 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Impartiality of trial judges who had previously participated in an appeal concerning temporary suspension of the accused from his post: violation Extract: “The Court notes that in the present case the fear of a lack of impartiality arose from the fact that the judges who had sat in the trial court at first instance were also part of the division of the Perugia court that re-examined whether to apply a precautionary measure consisting in the applicant’s suspension from his duties. In addition, two of these judges, X and Y, had made an order rejecting a request for a precautionary measure against the applicant in separate criminal proceedings concerning similar offences. Such a situation may give rise to misgivings on the part of the accused as to the judges’ impartiality. However, whether such misgivings may be regarded as objectively justified depends on the circumstances of each particular case; accordingly, the mere fact that a judge has also taken pre-trial decisions in a case cannot in itself justify fears as to his or her impartiality. In this respect, the Court notes that, according to the order adopted on 20   May 1994 by the division of the Perugia Court that re-examined the precautionary measures, no issue arose regarding the existence of cogent evidence against the applicant. This order and the order of 4 July 1994 also considered the existence of illegal administrative practices regarding the recruitment of temporary staff within the department in which the applicant was employed. Admittedly, in ruling on the adoption of precautionary measures the judges impugned by the applicant had summarily assessed the available evidence in order to decide whether at first sight the prosecution service’s suspicions had some substance, and had not sought to ascertain whether the evidence produced was sufficient to secure a conviction. However, the terms used in the disputed orders suggested that there had been sufficient evidence to conclude that an offence had been committed. The same judges who had adopted these orders then ruled on the applicant’s guilt. The Court considers that, in the circumstances of this case, the impartiality of the trial court could arouse genuine doubts. The applicant’s fears in that connection could thus be regarded as objectively justified.”   © 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