CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 novembre 2001

.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 36 November 2001 Werner v. Poland - 26760/95 Judgment 15.11.2001 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Judge participating in court decision to remove liquidator after making the same proposal to the court: violation Facts : Insolvency judge M. requested the District Court to dismiss the applicant from his function as judicial liquidator of a company, on the ground that it had been established in separate court proceedings that he had failed to pay employees of a company which he owned. The District Court, including M. as one of the three judges on the bench, dismissed the applicant and appointed a new liquidator. The applicant was not informed of the court session, which was held in camera . The District Court rejected the applicant's appeal, on the ground that no appeal lay, and the Regional Court confirmed this. Law : Article 6 § 1 – There were no grounds for assimilating the applicant's functions to those of a civil servant, his dismissal involved his pecuniary interests and the proceedings could be regarded as concerning his reputation. Article 6 therefore applied. The question of the dismissal came before the court at the request of the insolvency judge, so that it could not be said that she had no preconceived idea on the issue to be decided by the court. It was reasonable to conclude that she held a personal conviction that the dismissal request – which she had made – should be granted. Moreover, this situation gave objective grounds for believing that the court was not impartial. It was furthermore undisputed that the applicant did not have access to a higher court. Finally, the proceedings were not fair in so far as the court hearing was held in camera and the applicant was not given any opportunity to put his case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court dismissed the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage but made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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