In a case involving Romanian courts, the ECHR stresses that impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be assessed both subjectively, referring to a judge’s personal beliefs and conduct, and objectively, looking at the guarantees offered by the court to exclude any reasonable suspicion.
ECHR points out that a judge’s relationship with his or her bank can influence the judge’s decisional process, making him more inclined to rule in favour of the bank in a case which involves that bank. It is argued that this could erode the public’s trust in the judicial system and jeopardise the integrity of the judicial process.
Context of the case: The plaintiff challenged the lack of impartiality of the judges who settled an employment dispute between him and his employer, Banca Comercială Română (BCR).
History of the dispute: the plaintiff was a manager at a state-owned bank, later taken over by BCR, and his rapid dismissal led to a series of legal actions for re-employment and compensation.
The plaintiff alleged a lack of impartiality of the judges, claiming that they had personal or professional connections with BCR, jeopardising the integrity of the trial.
The relationship of the judges with the bank involved in the case:
- it is noted that both judges who heard the appeal and delivered the final judgment had connections with the bank involved in the case;
- one of the judges borrowed a sum of money from the bank during that very trial;
- it is pointed out that a judge’s relationship with his bank can influence the judge’s decisional process, making him more inclined to rule in favour of the bank;
- it is argued that this could erode public’s trust in justice and jeopardise the integrity of the judicial process.
Other relevant circumstances:
- It is noted that one of the judges participated in the rendering of a decision in another set of civil proceedings involving the same parties.
- Moreover, another judge has had as his superior the lawyer of BCR, the bank involved in the lawsuit.
- These circumstances, although of limited relevance, contribute to the plaintiff’s concerns about the judges’ lack of impartiality.
Taking all these aspects into account, ECHR held that Art. 6 has been violated.
