CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 juin 2010

.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. 131 June 2010 Mancel and Branquart v. France - 22349/06 Judgment 24.6.2010 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Assessment of question of pure fact evidence by an almost identically composed bench of the Court of Cassation in two successive appeals: violation   Facts – In 2000 a criminal court convicted the applicants of acquiring or retaining a prohibited interest and aiding and abetting that offence. The Court of Appeal acquitted the applicants, but the Court of Cassation reversed and quashed that judgment in 2002 and remitted the case to a different court of appeal. The latter found the applicants guilty and passed sentence. In 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeals on points of law lodged against that judgment by the applicants. Law – Article 6 § 1: The applicants had feared that the Court of Cassation would not be impartial as seven of the nine judges on the bench examining in 2005 their appeal on points of law against their conviction had sat on the bench which in 2002 had heard the prosecution appeal against the acquittal judgment. Accordingly, the Court had to determine whether, bearing in mind the task facing the judges of the Court of Cassation in examining the first appeal, they had been biased or could legitimately be considered to have been biased when it came to ruling on the second. In reaching its decision the Court had to take into consideration the particular features of the Court of Cassation’s role, which consisted not in reassessing the purely factual evidence but in reviewing the lawfulness of the impugned decision and verifying whether it had been justified and adequate reasons had been given. In the instant case the Court of Cassation had made its decision on the first appeal by reference to the factual evidence that the offence had actually been committed, finding both the objective and subjective elements of the offence to have been made out. In the context of the second appeal it had been called upon again to review the assessment of the constitutive elements of the offence, this time by the court of appeal to which the case had been remitted. There had therefore been objective reasons to fear that the Court of Cassation might be biased or prejudiced in ruling on the second appeal, lodged by the applicants. Accordingly, there had been a breach of their right to an impartial tribunal. Conclusion : violation (by four votes to three). Article 41: finding of a violation sufficient in itself 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