Information Note on the Court’s case-law 208
June 2017
Ramljak v. Croatia - 5856/13
Judgment 27.6.2017 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Composition of appeal court failed to guarantee objective impartiality: violation
Facts – A judgment adopted in the applicant’s favour in civil proceedings was overturned on appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court alleging that she had not had a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal because one of the appeal judges was the father of a trainee lawyer employed in the office of the two lawyers representing her opponent. Her appeal was dismissed and her constitutional complaint declared inadmissible.
Before the European Court, the applicant complained that her right under Article 6 to an impartial tribunal had been violated.
Law – Article 6 § 1: There was no evidence as regards personal bias on the part of the appeal judge. The case was therefore to be examined from the perspective of objective impartiality and, more specifically, the question whether the applicant’s doubts, stemming from the specific circumstances, could be regarded as objectively justified.
The nature of the personal link was of importance when determining whether the applicant’s fears were objectively justified. There was nothing to suggest that the judge was not aware of the fact that his son was employed at a law office representing a party in the proceedings at issue. However, nothing in the case file showed that he informed the president of the court of those circumstances. Had he done so all the issues concerning his participation in the case would have been addressed before it was examined. The fact that such a close relative as the son of a judge adjudicating a civil case at the appeal stage had such close working ties with lawyers representing the applicant’s opponent as one of the parties in those civil proceedings, although he had no involvement in the case, and that he was in a position of subordination to them compromised the court’s impartiality and made it open to doubt.
It was not possible to ascertain the exact influence of the judge on the outcome of the appeal since it had been decided in a closed meeting. However, it could be observed that he had presided over the appeal court’s three-judge panel and that therefore the applicant had grounds to believe that he had had an important role in delivering the judgment against her and that the impartiality of the court could have been open to genuine doubt.
Although the higher courts had the power to quash the decision on the ground that it appeared that the president of the appeal panel had not been impartial, they had declined to do so.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: EUR 3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See Morice v. France [GC], 29369/10, 23 April 2015, Information Note 184)
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy