CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 décembre 1992

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 No. December 1992 Sainte-Marie v. France - 12981/87 Judgment 16.12.1992 Article 6 Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Successive exercise by the same appellate judges in respect of the same accused of the functions of judge responsible for hearing applications for release from detention on remand in one criminal case and trial judge in another, related case, which had been conducted in parallel: 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.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Applicant had never challenged in French courts participation of two judges in adoption, by the Criminal Appeals Division, of two decisions in first case (possession of arms and criminal conspiracy): objection devoid of purpose, because complaint before Strasbourg organs concerned earlier intervention of the two judges in second case (criminal damage to immoveable property). Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Main thrust of applicant's argument ran counter to Court's case-law - only special circumstances can justify fears as to impartiality of a judge who has taken pre-trial decisions. The Court found nothing of that nature in the case before it. Decision of Indictment Division in criminal damage case (refusal to order applicant's release): based on accused's own statements; he did not retract them and never claimed that they had been obtained under duress.   Statements were moreover corroborated by uncontested physical evidence. Judgment of Criminal Appeals Division in the possession of arms and criminal conspiracy case (applicant sentenced to four years' imprisonment): participation of two judges in question did not undermine impartiality of trial court since applicant's misgivings could not be regarded as objectively justified. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one).   © 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