MORICE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 27 14 November 2006), and this unquestionably includes the requirement that the court must be impartial. 89. Lastly, the Court takes the view that the Government’s argument to the effect that J.M. was sitting on an enlarged bench comprising ten judges is not decisive for the objective-impartiality issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In view of the secrecy of the deliberations, it is impossible to ascertain J.M.’s actual influence on that occasion. Therefore, in the context thus described (see paragraphs 84-86 above), the impartiality of that court could have been open to genuine doubt. 90. Furthermore, the applicant had not been informed that Judge J.M. would be sitting on the bench and had no reason to believe that he would do so. The Court notes that the applicant had, by contrast, been notified that the case would be examined by a reduced bench of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, as is confirmed by the reporting judge’s report, the Court of Cassation’s online workflow for the case and three notices to parties, including two that were served after the date of the hearing (see paragraph 52 above). The applicant thus had no opportunity to challenge J.M.’s presence or to make any submissions on the issue of impartiality in that connection. 91. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that in the present case the applicant’s fears could have been considered objectively justified. 92. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 93. The applicant alleged that his criminal conviction had entailed a violation of his right to freedom of expression as provided for by Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”