Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 6 � 1 (criminal) • Impartial tribunal • Members of Supreme Court panel upholding applicant�s conviction and life-imprisonment sentence already having examined his earlier appeal • Mere fact that judges were twice members of panel reviewing verdict insufficient to show objective impartiality • Judges not bound by earlier ruling • Cassation appeal proceedings compliant with domestic law which provided adequate procedural safeguards for judge impartiality
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� S�ofra O�Leary, President, ��������� Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, ��������� Ganna Yudkivska, ��������� Mārtiņ� Mits, ��������� Latif H�seynov, ��������� Lado Chanturia, ��������� Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
the application (no. 52095/11 ) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (�the Convention�) by an Ukrainian national, Mr Ivan Ivanovych Teslya (�the applicant�), on 10 August 2011;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.