NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

430 NEWSLETTER 2020 Previous case law has already dealt with similar situations. On the one hand, in Dorozhko and Pozharskiy v. Estonia, the Court concluded that objectively justified doubts as to the impartiality of the presiding judge of the trial court were found to exist when her husband was the head of the team of investigators dealing with the applicants’ case 6 . On the other hand, the Court did not come to the same conclusion in Pastörs v. Germany , where two judges who dealt with the appli- cant’s case at the first and third level of jurisdiction were married. 7 The Court found no violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention on the grounds that the applicant’s complaint of bias had been submitted to the subsequent control of a judicial body with sufficient jurisdic- tion, and which offer the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention. The Court also noted that the applicant had not given any concrete arguments why a professional judge – being married to another profes- sional judge – should be biased when deciding on the same case at a different level of jurisdiction. What distinguishes this judgment from the Dorozhko and Pozharskiy case at the end is that the involvement of the second judge from the third level of jurisdiction did not entail direct review of his/her spouse’s decision which rendered the doubts of impartiality unjustified. Conclusion and Remarks It is clear that family affiliation with one of the parties could give rise to doubts about a judge’s impartiality. It is generally accepted that such appearance must be objectively justified which would very much depend on the circumstances of the specific case. However, in this particular case at hand, Turkish and French courts, both signatories of the Convention, do not agree on the specific circumstances resulting in lack of impartiality. What is expected from judges is that they protect the dignity of the judicial process as a whole. Any judge in respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw at least for two reasons; one, for the sake of the integrity of the judicial pro- 6 Dorozhko and Pozharskiy v. Estonia , nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04, paras. 56-58, 24 April 2008. 7 Pastörs v. Germany , no. 55225/14, paras. 58-70, 3 October 2019.