Case Concerning Immediacy Principle and Judge Composition Change

The appellant argued that the judgment violated the principle of immediacy because the deciding judge did not participate in the main hearing, which generally requires that all decisive procedural acts occur before the judging court. The court reasoned that although a change in the composition of the bench after the main hearing conflicts with the principle, the specific circumstances showed that the appellant was notified of the change in the single judge about two and a half months before the judgment was rendered, while the evidentiary proceedings were already closed. Since the evidence consisted only of documents, where the judge's personal impression is irrelevant, and the appellant failed to request a new main hearing upon notification of the judge change, the objection raised only in the second instance was deemed untimely, and the judgment was upheld as the deciding judge had sufficient knowledge from the written submissions.