CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 février 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   84 5.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT OLUJIĆ v. CROATIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Olujić v. Croatia (application no. 22330/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the lack of impartiality of three members of the National Judicial Council in disciplinary proceedings against the applicant; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the unjustified exclusion of the public from the proceedings; a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the authorities’ refusal to examine any of the defence witnesses in the applicant’s case; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Olujić 5,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Krunislav Olujić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Zagreb (Croatia). He was a judge and the President of the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ), as well as a member of the National Judicial Council ( Državno sudbeno vijeće , the “NJC”), before being dismissed in October 1998.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of the disciplinary proceedings against him for having harmed the reputation of the judiciary by fraternising in public with known criminals.   In 1996 disciplinary proceedings were brought against the applicant: he was accused of having sexual relationships with minors and of using his position to protect the financial activities of two individuals known for their criminal activities. The NJC found it established that the applicant had indeed used his position in an improper way; that decision was upheld by the Parliament’s Chamber of Counties. However, both those decisions were then quashed in April 1998 by the Constitutional Court and the case was sent back to the NJC for fresh examination.   In the resumed proceedings before the NJC, the allegations against the applicant were reduced: he was accused of fraternising in public with two individuals who had a criminal background. In October 1998 the applicant was found guilty and was dismissed from office. In November, the Parliament’s Chamber of the counties upheld the NCJ’s decision.   In December of the same year, the applicant lodged a complaint before the Constitutional Court alleging, among other things, that the disciplinary proceedings had not been held in public; that three members of the NJC, namely A.P., V.M. and M.H., had made statements against him in the media and could therefore not be considered impartial; and, that witnesses in his favour had not been heard. In December 2004 that complaint was dismissed as ill-founded.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6   June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr Olujić complained about the unfairness and excessive length of the disciplinary proceedings against him.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   Concerning the impartiality of three members of the National Judicial Council   The Court noted that an interview with V.M. had been published in the national daily newspaper “ Večernji list ” in February 1997, when the case was pending before the Chamber of Counties. The fact that V.M. had revealed in that interview that he had voted against the applicant’s appointment as President of the Supreme Court, together with the fact that he himself had been a potential candidate for the same post, had created a situation which could raise legitimate doubts as to V.M.’s impartiality. Concerning A.P., who at the time was President of the NJC, the Court noted that an interview with him had been published in the same newspaper in March 1997, when the case was pending before the Constitutional Court. In the interview A.P. stated that Mr Olujić had used his personal influence and contacts in order to protect the interests of two people with a criminal background, and added that the defence’s allegations that the case was politically motivated had been untrue. Those statements implied that A.P. had already formed an unfavourable view of the applicant’s case and were clearly incompatible with his participation in the proceedings. The Court further noted that an interview with M.H. had been published in another national daily newspaper, “ Slobodna Dalmacija ”, in September 1997, when the case was also pending before the Constitutional Court. In the interview he described the applicant as lacking experience and knowledge, and as a corpus alienum (a foreign body) in the Croatian judiciary. The Court considered that those expressions had clearly shown M.H.’s bias against Mr Olujić and that his participation in the proceedings after the publication of the interview had been incompatible with the requirement of impartiality. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Concerning the right to a public hearing   The Court observed that the NJC had excluded the public from the hearing in the case on the ground that it was necessary to protect the dignity of both the applicant and the judiciary. However, the applicant himself had asked that the proceedings be public and had therefore shown that he had not considered that his dignity required protection. Moreover, given that the proceedings had concerned such a prominent public figure and that public allegations had already been made suggesting that the case against him had been politically motivated, it was evident that it was in the interest of the applicant as well as that of the general public that the proceedings before the NJC be open to public scrutiny. Nor had that lack of public access been rectified in the proceedings before the Parliament’s Chamber of Counties or before the Constitutional Court. There had therefore been a violation of Article   6   § 1.   Concerning the equality of arms   The Court considered that the reasons relied on by the NJC for refusing to accept any of the witnesses called on behalf of the applicant for the purpose of substantiating his line of defence had not been sufficient. Indeed, the NJC had admitted all the proposals to hear evidence from the witnesses nominated by the counsel for the Government and none of the proposals submitted by the applicant. The Court therefore found that the Croatian authorities’ refusal to examine any of the defence witnesses had led to the applicant’s ability to present his case having been limited, in breach of Article 6 § 1.   Concerning the length of the proceedings   The Court held that the length of the resumed proceedings – over six years ­ – had been excessive, in particular in view of what had been at stake for the applicant, namely his dismissal. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.