When the attorney sensed the judge’s bias against his client, he tried to intervene. But this led to a confrontation with the judge and resulted in the defense attorney being punished for contempt of court. Attempts to restore justice in the national courts were unsuccessful.

This situation was examined by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of “Deli v. the Republic of Moldova” (Application No. 42010/06), according to the news site “ECHR.Ukrainian Aspect.”

Attorney Teodor Deli was representing a client in a civil proceeding. According to the defense attorney, during the hearing, the opposing party resorted to intimidating his client, while the judge failed to stop these attacks. When he attempted to intervene, the judge began to insult Deli and make threats, which led to a confrontation.

At the same time, according to the court transcript, it was Deli who insulted the opposing counsel and disrupted the proceedings, for which he was sanctioned for contempt of court.

The offender contested this classification and, in appealing the decision, argued that the circumstances of the case had been inaccurately recorded and that the judge had instructed his clerk not to record their dispute. However, no response to these arguments was ever provided, and the appeal was unsuccessful.

Citing Article 6(1) (the right to a fair trial) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, T. Deli appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, he complained that the judge was not impartial and favored the other party.

The Strasbourg Court noted that in a democratic society, it is of the utmost importance that courts inspire confidence. Thus, if there were any legitimate grounds for doubting a judge’s impartiality in a case, the judge must recuse himself.

When assessing bias, a distinction must be made between subjective and objective aspects. In this case, the applicant claimed that the judge was biased due to their dispute (subjective perspective), and also because he was simultaneously bringing charges against the attorney and ruling on those charges (objective perspective).

Although the lawyer used all means at his disposal to challenge the judge’s bias, none of them were effective. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s allegations regarding the judge’s bias in their entirety without any analysis or substantive examination of the facts. To an independent observer, such a situation could be considered to raise legitimate concerns regarding the possibility of bias.

The ECHR also found that in the case involving the lawyer’s contempt of court, the judge combined the official duties of both prosecutor and judge. Furthermore, there were insufficient safeguards to dispel legitimate concerns regarding the impact of such a procedure on the judge’s impartiality. And none of the subsequent court decisions remedied this situation.

Therefore, the Justices held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the impartiality of the judge and awarded the lawyer 1,500 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by Moldova.

The text of the ECHR’s press release on the decision in the case of “Deli v. the Republic of Moldova” (Application No. 42010/06) translated by Oleksandr Drozdov, President of the Ukrainian Bar Association, and Olena Drozdova, Director of the law firm “Drozdov & Partners,” can be found at the link.