Last Updated on April 28, 2020 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 237
February 2020
Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania – 60858/15
Judgment 4.2.2020 [Section IV]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Same judge sitting in two-judge appeal panels in both related sets of proceedings against applicant: no violation
Facts – Two sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in respect of various financial crimes, all committed in the same time-frame. During the second set of proceedings, the file from the first case was joined to that of the second case, as certain evidence was common to the two cases. The applicant was convicted in both sets. His convictions were upheld on appeal by a panel of two judges. One of the judges, M.A.M., sat on both panels.
Law – Article 6 § 1: The Court was not persuaded that there was evidence that Judge M.A.M. (or the other member of the panel) had displayed personal bias against the applicant in the framework of the second set of criminal proceedings. The case had therefore to be examined from the perspective of the objective impartiality test, and more specifically it had to address whether the applicant’s doubts, stemming from the specific situation, might be regarded as objectively justified in the circumstances of the case.
Judge C.B., who had taken part in the first set of proceedings alongside Judge M.A.M., had been disqualified from sitting in the second set of proceedings. However, the decision had been based on a number of elements related to the behaviour of this judge during the first appeal hearing in the second set of proceedings, in addition to the connection between the two cases being implied from the decision of the appeal panel to join the two files and use evidence common to both cases.
For his part, Judge M.A.M. had sought to withdraw from the case in order to eliminate any suspicions as to his possible lack of impartiality. Since he had not referred to any specific reasons for his withdrawal in his request, M.A.M. had sought leave to withdraw merely as a precautionary measure.
Judge M.A.M.’s application to withdraw had been examined by a panel of two judges who had delivered a reasoned decision which had replied to all arguments raised by the applicant, finding that the mere fact that he had taken part in the examination of the previous case against the applicant could not raise a reasonable suspicion that his impartiality would be affected. The judges examining the withdrawal application had concluded, after consideration of the two sets of proceedings in question, that there had been no proof to support the idea that Judge M.A.M. had expressed, in the first case, an opinion on the guilt of any of the accused in the case currently on trial.
Complaints concerning Judge M.A.M.’s alleged lack of impartiality had also been examined and rejected by judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice as well as by members of the disciplinary body of the Superior Council of Magistracy. They had examined the arguments raised before them as well as the proceedings concluded by the final judgment of June 2015 and determined, on the one hand, that there had been no reasons to justify a change of venue of the appeal and, on the other hand, that all requests for recusal or withdrawal had been examined and resolved in accordance with the law in thoroughly reasoned decisions and that the conviction judgment had been thoroughly reasoned and based on the relevant legal provisions.
Against that background, aside from the alleged similarity between the two sets of proceedings, Judge M.A.M.’s behaviour both in the first and second set of proceedings had not been such as to objectively justify the applicant’s fears as to his impartiality. In addition, in dismissing the withdrawal request, the Court of Appeal had given sufficient and relevant reasons for its decision, which had been compatible with the Court’s case-law. The applicant’s misgivings about the impartiality of the judge presiding over the trial panel examining his case could not be regarded as objectively justified.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Leave a Reply