Judicial Impartiality in Civil Proceedings: Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and Selected Cases of the Supreme Court





impartiality of the court, objective impartiality of the court, subjective impartiality of the court, recusal of a judge, right to a fair trial


The article addresses the issue of judicial impartiality in civil procedure, which is relevant from theoretical and practical perspectives. The purpose of the article is to highlight the main approaches to judicial impartiality as an integral part of the right to a fair trial in terms of the paragraph 1Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as to analyze the Supreme Court's practice for compliance with the approaches to the interpretation of judicial impartiality developed in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In the article the author uses general philosophical, general scientific and special research methods, in particular, dialectical, system-structural, logical and comparative legal methods, method of analysis and synthesis. The judicial impartiality is an integral element of the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. The European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights played a key role in the development of international standards of judicial impartiality within the European region. The European Court of Human Rights developed a dual approach to judicial impartiality, distinguishing between subjective and objective impartiality. An additional approach to verifying the impartiality of the court in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is to distinguish between functional and personal impartiality. The analysis of the Supreme Court practice shows that the latter has not fully accepted the approaches to judicial impartiality developed by the of the European Court of Human Rights. The article analyzes certain cases of the Supreme Court, in which, in the author's opinion, the Supreme Court incorrectly applied the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in order to motivate its decisions. In addition, special attention is paid to the problem of the possibility of judicial disqualification on the grounds of the performance/non-performance of certain procedural powers by a judge. The article can be interesting for legal scholars and practitioners, PhD students and students of law universities.

Author Biography

Tetiana Tsuvina , Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University

Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Justice


Jacobs, L. (2008). Tribunal Independence and Impartiality: Rethinking the Theory after Bell and Ocean Port Hotel – A Call for Empirical Analysis. Dialogue between Courts and Tribunals – Essays in Administrative Law and Justice (2001–2007). Les Éditions Thémis, 2008. P. 43–66. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1973725.

Perell, P.M. (2004). The Disqualification of Judges and Judgments on the Grounds of Bias or the Reasonable Apprehension of Bias. Advocates' Quarterly, 29(2), 102-117.

Amin A. (2017). Implicit Bias in the Courtroom and the Need for Reform. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 30(4), 575-592.

Litteneker, R.J. (1978). Disqualification of Federal Judges for Bias or Prejudice. University of Chicago Law Review, 46(1), 236-268.

Guivan, P.D. (2019). Independence and Impartiality of the Judiciary as a Determining Indicator of Fair Trial. Law and Society, 4, 71-77.

Tatulych, I.Yu. (2016). Impartial Trial – a Guarantee of Achieving the Main Objectives of Civil Proceedings. Legal State, 24, 154-158.

Chaban, N.A. (2021). Impartiality of the Judiciary as a Guarantee of Human Rights: a Theoretical and Legal Study. PhD Thesis. Kyiv : National Academy of Internal Affairs.

Ovsyannikova, O.O. (2020). Impartiality of the Court as an Element of Fair Judiciary. Juris Europensis Scientia, 2, 90-96. https://doi.org/10.32837/chern.v0i2.81.

Tsuvina, T.A. (2022). Principle of the Rule of Law in Civil Proceedings: Theoretical and Practical Study. Doctoral Thesis. Kharkiv: Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University.

Tsuvina, T.A. (2011). Impartiality of the Court in the context of the European Court of Human Rights Case Law. Law of Ukraine, 10, 304-312.

Tsuvina, T.A. (2020). Repeated Participation of a Judge in a Case beetwen the Parties: Some Remarks On The Functional Impartiality of The Court in the Context of the Rule of Law. Comparative and Analytical Law, 1, 218-222.

Tsuvina, T.A. (2019). Independence and Impartiality of the Court as Components of the Rule of Law in Civil Proceedings. Theory and practice of jurisprudence, 2(16), 5. Retrieved from http://tlaw.nlu.edu.ua/issue/view/11268/showToc.

Tsuvina, T.A. (October, 2021). Judicial Impartiality: International Standards and National Context. Materials of the round table dedicated to the 18th anniversary of the European Day of Civil Justice. (рр. 57-61). Kharkiv: Oberig.

Micallef v. Malta [GC] No. 17056/06 (2009, October). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-95031.

Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company LTD and others v. Georgia No. 16812/17 (2019, July). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-95031.

Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium No. 6878/75 (1981, June). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57522.

Padovani v. Italy No. 13396/87 (1993, February). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57812.

De Cubber v. Belgium No. 9186/80 (1984, October). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-57465.

Castillo Algar v. Spain No. 28194/95 (1998, October). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58256.

Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC] No. 73797/01 (2005, December). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71671.

Kleyn and others v. еhe Netherlands No. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98, 46664/99 (2003, May). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-61077.

Pullar v. the United Kingdom No. 22399/93 (1996, June). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57995.

Academy Trading Ltd and Others v. Greece No. 30342/96 (2000, April). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58536.

Indra v. Slovakia No. 46845/99 (2005, February). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68114.

Warsicka v. Poland No. 2065/03 (2007, January). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-79036.

Oberschlick v. Austria No. 11662/85 (1991, May). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57716.

Perus v. Slovenia No. 35016/05 (2012, September). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113520.

R.M.B. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) No. 37120/97 (1998, September). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-4402.

Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (No. 2), No. 18544/08 (2011, November). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-107552.

Skrlj v. Croatia No. 32853/13 (2019, July). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-194299.

Chmelir v. Czech Republic No. 64935/01 (2005, June). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69266.

Driza v. Albania No. 33771/02 (2007, November). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-83245.

Decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court case No. 908/137/18 (2020, February). Retrieved from http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/87485407.

Hughes, J., Bryden, Ph. (2016). From Principles to Rules: The Case for Statutory Rules Governing Aspects of Judicial Disqualification. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 53(3), 853-897.

Tsuvina, T.A. (May, 2020). Judge's Activity in Social Networks and His/Her Impartiality in terms of the Right to a Fair Trial. Theory and Practice of Modern Jurisprudence: materials of the XXIV scient. and pract. conf. (рр. 443-445). Kharkiv.

Lavents v. Latvia No. 58442/00 (2002, November). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60802.

Decision of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court (2021, February) case No. 757/7499/17-с. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/95067227.

Decision of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court (2022, September), case No. 201/473/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/106116571.

Filyutkin v. Russia, No. 39234/08 July 2018. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-185284.

Romenskiy v. Russia No. 22875/02 (2013, June). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-120512.

Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia No. 8001/07 (2016, October). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-167760.

Tsuvina, T.A. (2020). The Concept of Case Management: Foreign Experience and Prospects for Implementation in Ukraine. Legal Scientific Electronic Journal, 1, 75-78. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2020-1/18.



How to Cite

Tsuvina , T. . (2023). Judicial Impartiality in Civil Proceedings: Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and Selected Cases of the Supreme Court . Problems of Legality, (160), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.160.273808