DRAGOJEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 30 (see, amongst many other authorities, Erkapić v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 78, 25 April 2013). 108. The Court therefore rejects the Government’s objection. It also notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2. Merits (a) The parties’ submissions 109. The applicant pointed out that during the proceedings the president of the trial bench, Judge Z.Č., had, of his own motion, expressed concerns about the appearance of his impartiality as he had previously taken part in the proceedings extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Referring to the case-law of the Court and the relevant domestic practices, he had submitted that there were ascertainable facts raising doubts as to his impartiality. In the applicant’s view, this meant that the judge had lacked impartiality in terms of the subjective aspect of the Court’s relevant test and, in any event, that the trial bench had lacked objective impartiality as this had been sufficient evidence to raise legitimate doubts as to the lack of Judge Z.Č.’s impartiality. Moreover, the President of the Dubrovnik County Court had shared the concerns expressed by Judge Z.Č. and had therefore requested the Supreme Court to transfer the proceedings to another court, but the Supreme Court had dismissed that request. 110. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of Judge Z.Č.’s impartiality in terms of the subjective aspect of the Court’s relevant test as the judge had never expressed any personal bias or prejudice in the applicant’s case. As to the objective test of impartiality, the Government considered that the mere participation of a judge at previous stages of the proceedings could not in itself raise any doubts as to his or her lack of impartiality. It was true that during the proceedings Judge Z.Č. had asked to withdraw from the case, but he had merely relied on his interpretation of the relevant domestic requirements without providing concrete grounds for the possible appearance of a lack of impartiality on his part. The final decision concerning his request had been given by the Supreme Court, which had examined the request for transfer of the proceedings to another court submitted by the President of the Dubrovnik County Court. The Supreme Court had explained that the fact that a judge had ordered pre-trial detention could not affect his or her impartiality as such a decision did not concern the same issues that the judge had to decide when examining the case on the merits. In the Government’s view, this interpretation had followed the relevant practice of the Court and the Constitutional Court. The applicant had thus misconstrued the request of Judge Z.Č. to withdraw from the case as that request had merely referred to