The right to an impartial tribunal is one of the elements of the right to a fair trial. Impartiality is assessed with two approaches, objective and subjective. In the case-law the same situation can point both to objective and subjective impartiality. Regarding the many situations which point to objective impartiality of the court, there are two main groups, situations of a personal nature and situations of a functional nature. Family ties between the lawyer and court justify the doubt of the court’s impartiality. Work ties can also lead to doubts about the court’s impartiality and the nature of the relationship and potential hierarchy should be taken into consideration. Specific economic interests of the court, or a person close to the court, in the outcome of the dispute can also cast doubt on the impartiality of the court. In case the judge had already taken on an advisory, legislative or some other role in the same case, generally the fear in the judge’s impartiality will be justified. In case the judge had already served twice as judge in the same case, consideration should be given to the nature of the decisions and the circumstances on which the decisions are based. In any case, it is up to the court itself to disclose any circumstances which could cast a doubt on its impartiality, irrespective of the parties, because withholding such information can cast a doubt on the court’s impartiality.