PANYIK v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 7 involving the applicant was their daily work relationship (see paragraph 9). This situation had not changed since then and the applicant was at the material time still working as a lawyer in that region. While the Court does not consider that the existence of a work relationship between a judge and a lawyer practising in the court concerned necessarily entails a lack of impartiality on the part of the former, the decisive factor in the present case is the fact that Dr V. had previously withdrawn on that very ground, which still pertained when he later participated in the decision to dismiss the applicant’s appeal. Therefore, the Court finds that no sufficient guarantees were provided to exclude legitimate doubt as to his impartiality towards the applicant. For the Court, this is so despite the fact that the neutrality of the remaining two judges in the panel has not been called into question, because the doubt as to bias on the side of the president of the panel casts doubt on the impartiality of the whole panel. 32. The applicant’s fear of the Regional Court’s lack of impartiality was even more aggravated by the fact that two out of three judges deciding on his second motion for bias against Dr V. had previously declared themselves biased (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). 33. The Court therefore observes that, on the facts of the case, the impartiality of the Regional Court was capable of appearing open to doubt. The applicant’s fears in this respect can thus be considered to have been objectively justified and the Regional Court accordingly failed to meet the required Convention standard under the objective test. 34. The Court thus concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 35. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 36. The applicant claimed HUF 1,000,000 (approximately 3,800 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 37. The Government contested this claim. 38. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered some nonpecuniary damage and awards him the full sum claimed.