Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 37027/20

Alleged lack of impartiality 11. The general principles on impartiality, as well as those relating to impartiality in the context of a judge's participation in previous decisions on the same subject matter, have recently been summarised in the Court's judgment in the case of Meng v. Germany (no. 1128/17, §§ 42-52, 16 February 2021, with further references).

Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 37027/20

However, the Regional Court referred to the applicant as separately prosecuted or put his name in brackets after referring to the accused (see paragraph 4 above), thus underlining the fact that it was not called upon to determine the applicant's guilt but was only concerned with assessing the criminal responsibility of those accused within the scope of the proceedings at issue (compare Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, § 69, 27 February 2014, and compare and contrast Mucha, cited above, § 61).

Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 37027/20

It follows that the Regional Court was under an obligation to respect the witnesses' decision to avail themselves of their statutory right not to testify and thus had good reason for admitting their untested statements (compare Sievert v. Germany, no. 29881/07, § 61, 19 July 2012).

Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 37027/20

The Court observes that the applicant's allegations of lack of impartiality concerned professional judges (see paragraph 5 above), who must be assumed to have been more trained, accustomed and prepared than would a lay judge to disengage themselves from their experience of and findings in the previous trial against the applicant's alleged co-perpetrators (see Mucha v. Slovakia, no. 63703/19, § 51, 25 November 2021).