Communicated on 7 September 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 63246/10 Charalambos NICHOLAS against Cyprus lodged on 21 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Charalambos Nicholas , is a Cypriot and British national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Larnaca . He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Loucaides , a lawyer practising in Nicosia .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 10 January 1985 the applicant was employed by Cyprus Airways Ltd as a trainee pilot.

On 27 September 1985 his services were terminated during the probationary period.

The applicant was informed by a letter dated 3 October 1985. The decision of the company ’ s board stated that the applicant failed to meet the company ’ s professional standards of competency.

On 26 June 1998 the applicant brought a civil action before the District Court of Nicosia against Cyprus Airways Ltd for wrongful dismissal and defamation in view of the communication of the allegedly unfounded statement that he did not meet the company ’ s professional standards to third parties (civil action no. 7562/98).

On 29 December 2006 the court dismissed the action.

On 9 February 2007 the applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court (appeal no. 43/ 07). This was dismissed on 21 April 2010.

After the judgment of the Supreme Court was given , the applicant discovered that the son of one of the judges of the Supreme Court, A.K . , and the daughter of the lawyer of the respondent company were married and both worked in the firm of the respondent company ’ s lawyer . The applicant submits that the lawyer representing him in the domestic proceedings did not request the exemption of the judge in question because he did not have sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts at the time. He also submits that he had not instructed his lawyer as he had only found out about this after the appeal proceedings ended.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that there was lack of impartiality on the basis of the objective test in view of the relationship of one of the judges of the Supreme Court, A.K., with the lawyer of the respondent company in the domestic proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies? In particular, was there a remedy at the applicant ’ s disposal, following the delivery of the judgment in his appeal, in relation to his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which could be considered effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In this connection, was it open for the applicant to file an application with the Supreme Court raising his complaint and seeking the setting aside of the judgment and a re-hearing of his appeal? (see, mutatis mutandis , the Educational Service Commission v. Zena Poulli , Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 19 November 2001, (2001) 3 CLR 1060 ) .

The Government are requested to submit all relevant domestic provisions and case-law on the matter.

2. Was the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant ’ s case objectively impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the relationship between one of the judges on the bench , A.K. , and the r epresentative of the respondent company ?