Mathony v Luxembourg - 15048/03 [2010] ECHR 519 (4 March 2010)

Mathony v Luxembourg - 15048/03 [2010] ECHR 519 (4 March 2010)

The Court found that the applicant's fears regarding the impartiality of the trial court were objectively justified because the same judges had previously ruled on his conduct and the gravity of the offence when refusing the release of his car, thus violating Article 6(1) ECHR.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 519
Parties
Applicant: Mathony; Respondent: Luxembourg
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
04 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Execution of Judgment and Closure of Supervision
Outcome
Supervision of execution closed; Luxembourg complied with the judgment.
Legal Topics
Judicial Impartiality, Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Execution of ECHR Judgments
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Judicial Impartiality Fair Trial Article 6 ECHR Execution of ECHR Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathony

Applicant

Luxembourg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Execution of Judgment and Closure of Supervision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the criminal court that convicted the applicant lacked objective impartiality in violation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's fears regarding the impartiality of the trial court were objectively justified because the same judges had previously ruled on his conduct and the gravity of the offence when refusing the release of his car, thus violating Article 6(1) ECHR.

Court Disposition

Supervision of execution closed; Luxembourg complied with the judgment.

Orders

  • Luxembourg paid the applicant 1,000 euros in just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
  • Judgment disseminated to magistrates and published.