The case Mitrov v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

Today, 02 june 2016, the European Court of Human Rights, has notified in writing  the case Mitrov v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 45959/09). 

   The applicant, Slobodan Mitrov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Strumica (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).        The case concerned a traffic accident in which the daughter of a criminal-law judge was killed. Mr Mitrov was involved in November 2006 in a traffic accident in which an 18-year-old girl was killed. She was the daughter of a judge, M.A., working in the criminal section of the Strumica Court of First Instance. An investigation was opened against Mr Mitrov who had been one of the drivers in the car accident and he was subsequently charged and convicted in March 2008 by the Strumica trial court for driving at excessive speed and under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The trial court also upheld the compensation claim lodged by the victim’s family against Mr Mitrov’s insurance company. Mr Mitrov’s appeal was dismissed in September 2008 and his sentence increased to six years’ imprisonment. His appeal for extraordinary review of a final judgment was also dismissed in January 2009 by the Supreme Court.

   The most questionable moment was that throughout the proceedings, Mr Mitrov asked the judges deciding on his case to be excluded, submitting that they were adjudicating a case concerning an incident in which their colleague’s daughter had died. On appeal, he further submitted that one of the judges had previously worked as a court clerk delegated to judge M.A., the victim’s mother, who had also been president of the criminal section of the trial court. His requests that the case be assigned to another court were, however, all refused.

  Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Mitrov  complained about the unfairness of the proceedings against him, alleging in particular that the trial court which had decided on his case had lacked impartiality.

   Therefore, the Court notes in this respect that similar considerations apply in respect of all the judges in the trial court. In this connection it observes that the domestic law did provide for the possibility of transferring a case to another competent court, a practice which according to the applicant, and not refuted by the Government, had been applied in similar circumstances. In the Court’s view this is sufficient to conclude that in the present case the applicant’s fears as to the impartiality of the trial court could have been considered objectively justified.

    Finally, violation of Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal) 

The integral judgement could be found here