Avenue de l'Europe
Micallef v. Malta 
| 2009
The close family ties between the opposing party’s advocate and the Chief Justice sufficed to objectively justify fears that the presiding judge lacked impartiality.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, October 2009
Mrs M. was involved in a legal battle with her neighbour. The judge presiding over the court was the brother and uncle of two of the lawyers representing her neighbour in the case. The court ruled against Mrs M. and in favour of the neighbour. Mrs M. complained that the court had been biased.
The European court ruled that the close family ties between the opposing party’s lawyers and the presiding judge justified fears that the judge lacked impartiality. This breached Mrs M.’s right to a fair trial.
The court noted that under Maltese law at the time, there was no automatic duty for a judge to withdraw from cases where impartiality could be an issue. There was also no way for a person to request that a judge should not hear their case when they were related to the other side’s lawyers.
After the case was lodged with the European court, Maltese law was changed. It now allows a judge to be challenged or abstain from dealing with a case, if one of the legal representatives is a close relation.
Saur Vallnet’s lawyer discovered a conflict of interest concerning a judge who decided on the company’s case. The European court ruled that the company was justifiably concerned about the judge’s impartiality. Andorra responded by bringing in new laws allowing national court decisions or judgments to be revised following a Strasbourg ruling finding a violation of the ECHR.
Hans Moor was exposed to asbestos during his work in the 1960s and 70s. This gave him cancer, which was diagnosed in 2004. Hans Moor died in 2005, aged 58. Just before his death, Mr Moor had brought a claim for damages against his former employer for failing to take precautions against exposure to asbestos. The claim was continued by his wife and children.
All of the Roma inhabitants of a village had their houses burnt down by other locals. The authorities were warned, but refused to intervene. After the attack, the authorities did not investigate properly and the courts failed to give the victims a fair trial. Their application to the European court led to compensation and local programmes to combat discrimination and exclusion.
Malta
Andorra
Switzerland
Romania