Information Note on the Court’s case-law 54

June 2003

Pescador Valero v. Spain - 62435/00

Judgment 17.6.2003 [Section IV]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Impartial tribunal

Participation in proceedings involving a university of a judge employed by the university as an associate professor: violation

Facts : The applicant lodged an administrative appeal against the decision of the rector of the University of Castilla-L Mancha (UCLM) removing him from his post as head of the administrative staff on the campus of the University of Albacete. The President of the High Court of Justice dealing with the matter was a visiting Professor of Law at the UCLM and recei ved emoluments in that capacity. The applicant declared that he had become aware of this more than one and a half years after bringing his action and sought an order requiring the judge to stand down. The court dismissed the application, taking the view th at it should have been submitted earlier, since the applicant should by virtue of his duties as head of the administrative staff on the campus have been aware of the professional connection between the judge and the university. The court further stated tha t the applicant had failed to adduce evidence that he had not actually become aware of the situation until later. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s amparo appeal.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – There is nothing to indicate that the applicant knew th e judge, or event that he was under an obligation to know him, before he applied for an order requiring the judge to stand down. Also, the reason given by the court for dismissing the application for an order requiring the judge to stand down was based on a presumption that the applicant knew of the links between the judge and the defendant university, a presumption unsupported by any firm evidence. Furthermore, to require the applicant to show that he did not know the judge in question is tantamount to imp osing an excessive evidential burden on him. As a visiting professor at the university, the judge had had regular and close professional links with the university for several years. He received not unsubstantial periodic emoluments from the university for his teaching activities. The twofold function of judge and visiting professor in receipt of emoluments from the opposing party may have led the applicant to entertain legitimate fears that the judge in question would not deal with his case with the requisi te impartiality.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court awards the applicant 2,000 € for non-pecuniary damage.

© 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