28417\/07<\/a><\/p>\nJudgment 5.4.2018 [Section V]<\/p>\n
Article 6<\/strong>
\nCriminal proceedings<\/strong>
\nArticle 6-1<\/strong>
\nImpartial tribunal<\/strong><\/p>\nRefusal of change of venue for criminal trial despite pending civil action by accused impugning trial court\u2019s conduct: violation<\/p>\n
Facts \u2013 The applicant, who had been sentenced on appeal to a prison term of shorter duration than the time which he had already spent in pre-trial detention, filed an action for damages against the State with another court. The relevant civil proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of a second set of criminal proceedings against him, on the grounds that they might affect the outcome of the dispute. The applicant unsuccessfully applied for a change of venue for the second set of criminal proceedings on the grounds that the criminal court\u2019s involvement in his civil action raised an impartiality issue. He was ultimately sentenced to a further prison term, which, combined with the first sentence, exceeded the duration of his pre-trial detention, leading to the dismissal of his civil action.<\/p>\n
Law \u2013 Article 6 \u00a7 1: Even though four judges on the bench of the criminal court hearing the second case had not taken part in the previous criminal proceedings against the applicant, the fact that they were professionally attached to one of the defendants in the concurrent civil proceedings, together with the fact that the latter had been suspended pending the outcome of the second criminal case, gave the applicant sufficient cause for legitimate doubt as to those judges\u2019 objective impartiality.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, under the relevant budgetary regulations, the possible award to the applicant \u2013 had his action for damages been successful \u2013 would have had to be paid from the budget of the criminal court in question.<\/p>\n
Even though it had not been established that that fact had in any way influenced the individual situations of the criminal court judges, it could legitimately have reinforced the applicant\u2019s doubts.<\/p>\n
Moreover, domestic law \u2013 which required judges to withdraw from a criminal case where there was any doubt as to their impartiality, even in cases other than those explicitly mentioned \u2013 provided for reassigning the case to another court where all the judges had withdrawn.<\/p>\n
The applicant\u2019s request to that effect had been dismissed on purely formal grounds, without detailed examination. The applicant also unsuccessfully raised the issue before the two higher courts, that is to say the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation, which had themselves been respondents in the same civil proceedings for damages. By failing to reply to his arguments, those courts had also failed to dispel the legitimate doubt concerning bias on the part of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
In short, the court of first instance which had dealt with the second criminal case against the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of objective impartiality, and the higher courts had failed to remedy that situation.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).<\/p>\n
Article 41: EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n