Communicated on 9 November 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 30370/13 Petar ÄŒUDINA against Croatia lodged on 2 April 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Petar Čudina , is a Croatian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bergen Op Zoom in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Marjanović , a lawyer practising in Rijeka.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 10 November 1997 the Rijeka Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office indicted the applicant on charges of grievous bodily harm. The applicant was tried in the Rijeka Municipal Court. Heari ngs held on 6 April, 8 June, 13 July and 2 October 1998 were presided over by judge S. Å .

At the hearing of 6 April 1998 the applicant gave evidence. The hearings of 8 June and 13 July 1998 were adjourned. At the hearing of 2 October 1998 witness Z. Č . and expert witness R.D. gave evidence.

It appears that the case was then transferred to another judge.

On 23 January 2006 a panel presided by judge M.P.R. found the applicant guilty and sentenced him in his absence to two years and eight months ’ imprisonment.

At the applicant ’ s request the proceedings were reopened on 2 October 2007. In the new trial a panel again presided over by judge M.P.R. found the applicant guilty for a second time and sentenced him to three years ’ imprisonment.

This judgment was upheld on 4 March 2009 by a panel of the Rijeka County Court presided by judge S. Å .

The applicant requested an extraordinary review of the final judgment. He argued, inter alia , that judge S. Å . had not been impartial when deciding his appeal against the first-instance judgment because she had already participated in the proceedings at first instance as the president of the trial panel.

This argument was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1 September 2009 on the ground that judge S. Å . had not adopted any decision in the first-instance proceedings.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 21 November 2012.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that judge S. Å . was not impartial when deciding his appeal against the first-instance judgment because she had also presided over several hearings in the trial against him.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

G iven the participation of judge S. Å . in the trial against the applicant at first instance, was the court which decided the applicant ’ s appeal against the first-instance judgment impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?