Communicated on 8 July 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 48314/18
Marija KAMINSKIENĖ
against Lithuania
lodged on 8 October 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns independence and impartiality of judges. The applicant is a shareholder of company A. and she had a dispute with that company relating to the quantity and value of her shares. An arbitration tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claim against the company, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The applicant lodged several appeals on points of law. On 17 April 2018 a three-judge selection panel of the Supreme Court refused to accept her first appeal on points of law for examination as raising no important legal issues; the rapporteur and president of the selection panel was Judge E.L. On 25 May 2018 a different three-judge selection panel refused to accept the second appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant on those same grounds; the rapporteur was Judge D.Š. Her third appeal on points of law was dismissed as being lodged out of time.
The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the two selection panels of the Supreme Court were not independent and impartial because Judge E.L. had studied together with the director of company A. who was the defendant in the case, and Judge D.Š. was a close friend of the lawyer who represented company A. in the same proceedings. She submits that both those judges have previously acknowledged their bias and have recused themselves in other cases involving, respectively, company A. and its lawyer.
The applicant also complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the arbitration tribunal was biased and that its decision was based on an unacceptable assessment of the facts and domestic law.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Were the selection panels of the Supreme Court which refused to accept the applicant’s appeals on points of law on 17 April and 25 May 2018 independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the participation of Judge E.L. and Judge D.Š., respectively, in those panels (see Dainelienė v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 23532/14, §§ 43-51, 16 October 2018, and the cases cited therein)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy