Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 42941/05

The existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, that is, on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, namely ascertaining whether the tribunal offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 46, Series A no. 154).

Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 42941/05

The Court reiterates that the guarantee provided in paragraph 3 (e) of Article 6 signifies that a person "charged with a criminal offence" who is unable to understand or speak the language used in the court has the right to the free assistance of an interpreter for translation or interpretation of all those documents or statements in the proceedings instituted against him which it is necessary for him to understand or to have rendered into the court's language in order to have the benefit of a fair trial (see Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, 28 November 1978, § 48, Series A no. 29).

Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 42941/05

The Court's role under Article 6 § 1 is not to assess the facts which led the domestic courts to adopt one decision rather than another, and Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee that the "right result" will be reached by the domestic courts (see Klasen v. Germany, no. 75204/01, § 43, 5 October 2006).

Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 42941/05

For the guaranteed right to be effective, the obligation of the competent authorities is not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances, may also extend to a degree of subsequent monitoring of the adequacy of the interpretation provided (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 74, Series A no. 168).