CASE OF STURUA v. GEORGIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)
András Sajó;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
5. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Tbilisi. 6. On 15 May 1999 the applicant was appointed President of the Abasha District Court for a ten-year term. 7. On 3 December 2004 the Supreme Council of Justice initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under section 2(2)-(e) of the Act of 22 February 2000 on Disciplinary Proceedings against Judges of Ordinary Courts (hereinafter, “the Disciplinary Proceedings Act” – see paragraphs 15-18 below). He was accused in particular of having retained a criminal case file for six months after withdrawing from the case on 29 October 2003. 8. On 23 December 2004 a Panel of the Disciplinary Council of Judges (hereinafter, “the Panel”), composed of Mr K.K. (the President of the Panel and rapporteur), Mr G.Ch, Mr D.S. and Mr Th.Th., considered the case at an oral hearing. According to the transcript of the hearing, the applicant admitted to the act of negligence he had been accused of. After examining the circumstances of the case, the Panel found the applicant guilty of the misconduct in question. It considered his conduct all the more serious because the defendants in the case had been in detention at the time and because he had had a duty, under Article 6 of the Convention, to act promptly and without fault. The Panel took into account the nature of the misconduct, which it classified as serious, and the existence of another disciplinary measure against the applicant in the past, and decided to remove him from office. 9. On 29 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Disciplinary Council of Judges (hereinafter, “the Disciplinary Council”) on points of fact and law under section 60(1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act (see paragraph 17 below). He questioned the assessment of the circumstances of the case and the application of the legal provisions to the established facts in the decision of 23 December 2004. His appeal was examined at a plenary session of the Disciplinary Council composed of eight members, including the same four, Mr K.K., Mr G.Ch., Mr D.S. and Mr Th.Th, who had sat at the first hearing. As before, Mr K.K. acted as President and rapporteur in the examination of the applicant’s appeal. 10. By a decision of 27 January 2005, the Disciplinary Council unanimously upheld the Panel’s decision of 23 December 2004 in its entirety. The appellate instance confirmed that the lower body had correctly established the facts and applied the relevant law to the factual findings. 11. The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court under section 74 of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act, as amended on 25 February 2005 (see paragraph 18 below). He argued that he had not been given notice that he could appear before the Panel and that there had been a delay in the Disciplinary Council examining his appeal. He also stated that under Article 6 of the Convention the four members of the Panel who had taken the decision of 23 December 2004 had not had the right to sit subsequently in the Disciplinary Council appeal hearing. 12. In a judgment of 11 July 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as ill-founded. Based on the transcript, it found that he had in fact been present at the Panel hearing on 23 December 2004 and had been able to state his case without impediment, contrary to his allegation. At the hearing the applicant had admitted to the act of negligence with which he had been charged. The Supreme Court rejected the allegation of a delay in the examination of the case by the Disciplinary Council by noting that the latter had given its ruling within the statutory time-limit of one month. The Supreme Court also found that the presence of four members of the Panel as participants in the subsequent Disciplinary Council proceedings had not contravened the requirements of sections 22 and 24 of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act (see paragraph 17 below).