European Court of Human Rights - case of Holm v. Sweden (1993) (excerpts)

European Court of Human Rights - case of Holm v. Sweden (1993) (excerpts)

(...)

33. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that

the independence and impartiality of the District Court were open

to doubt and that the applicant's fears in this respect were

objectively justified. Moreover, since the Court of Appeal's

jurisdiction, like that of the District Court, was limited by the

terms of the jury's verdict, the defect in the proceedings before

the latter court could not have been cured by an appeal to the

former (see paragraphs 13 and 16 above).


In sum, there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) in the particular circumstances of the present case.


II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)


34. Article 50 (art. 50) reads:


"If the Court finds that a decision or a

measure taken by a legal authority or any other

authority of a High Contracting Party is

completely or partially in conflict with the

obligations arising from the ... Convention, and

if the internal law of the said Party allows only

partial reparation to be made for the

consequences of this decision or measure, the

decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford

just satisfaction to the injured party."


A. Non-pecuniary damage