Information Note on the Court’s case-law 200
October 2016
Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia - 8001/07
Judgment 27.10.2016 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Indication by judge that litigant’s refusal to accept friendly settlement in domestic proceedings might adversely affect the outcome: violation
Facts – The first applicant complained that he had been arbitrarily deprived of his house and plot of land and that he was denied a fair trial in the ensuing court proceedings. He complained, inter alia, that one of the judges involved in his case had not been impartial as he had tried to compel him to sign a friendly settlement by threatening him with the negative effects of his refusal.
Law – Article 6 § 1: It was not uncommon in the legal orders of the Contracting States for the parties to be asked whether they are willing to enter into a friendly settlement and for them to be informed of the procedural consequences. This served both the interests of procedural economy and the good administration of justice. However, taking into account the importance of the principle of judicial impartiality, judges enquiring into the parties’ willingness to enter into friendly settlements had to exercise caution and refrain from using language which could, assessed objectively, justify legitimately held fears that the judge in question lacked impartiality.
In the present case, the judge had invited the first applicant to consider the friendly-settlement proposal presented to him. However, the language used by the judge during the hearing (he stated that the court always attached importance to the fact that a party had refused to sign a reasonable friendly settlement and that this was the applicant’s last opportunity to discuss the settlement) was clearly capable of raising a legitimate fear that the first applicant’s refusal to accept a friendly settlement might have an adverse influence on the consideration of the merits of his case. In the Court’s view, the judge’s conduct had therefore lacked the necessary detachment demanded by the principle of judicial neutrality and raised an objectively justified fear that he lacked impartiality.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the principles of legal certainty and equality of arms and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 41: reserved.
© 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