CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 février 1996

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .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 February 1996 Bulut v. Austria - 17358/90 Judgment 22.2.1996 Article 6 Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Public hearing Oral hearing Fairness of criminal proceedings in Regional Court and in Supreme Court: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Participation at pre-trial stage of a trial judge 1.   Tribunal "established by law" Apparent inconsistency in domestic legislation (Articles 68 §   2 and 281 § 1 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure) resolved by national courts in manner that Court does not call into question. 2.   Impartiality of trial court Subjective approach: no suggestion of prejudice or bias on the part of judge concerned. Objective approach: mere fact that trial judge also dealt with case at pre-trial stage does not in itself justify fears as to his impartiality. Role of judge concerned was limited in time and consisted of questioning two witnesses.   It did not entail assessment of evidence nor did it require him to reach any conclusion as to applicant's involvement. In this limited context, applicant's fear that Regional Court lacked impartiality cannot be regarded as objectively justified.   In any event, not open to applicant to question impartiality of trial court, when he did not make use of right to challenge it. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). B.   No hearing in Supreme Court Grounds of appeal, as formulated by applicant, raised no question of fact bearing on assessment of applicant's guilt or innocence but challenged trial court's assessment of evidence.   No hearing necessary. Court not required to decide on validity of Austria's reservation. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). C.   Attorney-General's submission of observations Submission of observations (" croquis ") allowed Attorney-General to adopt position as to applicant's appeal.   Observations were not communicated to defence and defence could not reply. Principle of equality of arms does not depend on further, quantifiable unfairness flowing from procedural inequality: for the defence to assess whether a submission deserves reaction.   Unfair for the prosecution to make submissions to a court without the knowledge of the defence. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Claim for compensation for distress and costs of legal representation in deportation proceedings resulting from conviction. No causal link established between violation found and deportation proceedings. Conclusion : claim rejected (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses Domestic proceedings: costs unrelated to violation found.   Claim rejected. Proceedings in Strasbourg: partial reimbursement. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum (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