MORICE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS 55 Judge M. in connection with the present case, i.e., the Borrel case. The judge who had made the above-quoted statement about the way in which the Ministry of Justice had acted in the “Scientology” case and who, in the meantime, had risen to become a judge of the Court of Cassation, was a member of the formation which heard the appeal. The applicant has acknowledged that it has not been shown that there was any actual bias on the part of the judge. He submitted, however, that his very presence on the bench had been enough to create, in an objective sense, a legitimate fear or suspicion of a lack of impartiality. The Grand Chamber agrees with that proposition. It takes the view that the language that had been used by the judge in question in support of Judge M. was capable of raising doubts in the applicant’s mind regarding the impartiality of the Court of Cassation. It considers that this is supported by the “very singular context of the case” (see paragraph 84 of the present judgment), comprising as it does the interplay of various relations and factors, and particularly by the fact that the professional conflict between Judge M. and the applicant had taken on the appearance of a personal conflict, since it was the former who had filed the complaint against the latter. Further, the Grand Chamber observes that the Court of Appeal had itself seen a connection between the two cases to which an “ex post facto settling of scores” could be ascribed. The essential question is whether one can have a reasonable doubt regarding the impartiality of the Court of Cassation by reason of the inclusion in its composition of the judge in question. It remains unknown whether that judge had any recollection of what he had actually said nine years earlier or whether it occurred to him, when seised of the case, that anything he had done or said in relation to Judge M. might be taken to reflect on his impartiality. If he had thought about it at all, one would have expected him to inform the other members of the bench. It is not known whether he did or did not remember or, if he did, whether he thought there was cause to reflect on the matter. It may be that he did not; or it may be that he did but that the bench thought nothing of it, for otherwise one would have expected the matter to be resolved quite simply by his withdrawal from the case, or otherwise by a decision of the court after giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The Government have not suggested that in such cases the French system provides a means of redress of which the applicant should have availed himself. It must therefore be understood that the applicant had no way of bringing the matter before the Court of Cassation when, after judgment was handed down, he became aware of the participation of the judge in question (compare In Re Pinochet [1999] UKHL 52 (15 January 1999), where the House of Lords, faced with a similar situation, set aside its own judgment). The Court is, therefore, in the unhappy position of having to examine the matter at first instance.