EIT: Tuomari esteellinen ennakkokäsityksen perusteella

Violation of Mr Sperisen’s right to a fair trial on account of the lack of impartiality of the president of the appeal-court bench which sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment

In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Sperisen v. Switzerland (application no. 22060/20) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:

• A violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, who contested the impartiality of the presiding judge of the bench of the Criminal Appeals and Retrial Division (“the
CPAR”) of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva, which had determined, on appeal, the criminal charge against him.

Finding inadmissible, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the applicant’s complaint alleging Judge A.C.F.-B.’s lack of impartiality on account of the terms used in her order of 18 July 2017, the Court noted that Judge A.C.F.-B.’s observations of 3 October 2017 had gone beyond the expression of a mere suspicion. It considered that the applicant could reasonably have feared that
Judge A.C.F.-B. had had a preconceived idea about his guilt when, several months later, she was required to rule on his case as the presiding judge of the bench of the CPAR of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva which, in its judgment of 27 April 2018, had sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. In the Court’s view it followed that the appellate court, that is to say, the bench of the CPAR presided over by Judge A.C.F.-B. which had determined the criminal charge against him, had not offered the guarantees of impartiality required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Press release