Facts
Since July 8, 2014, the Public Prosecutor's Office has been conducting a criminal investigation against B. for offenses against the Narcotics Act. On October 9, 2014, A. was placed under investigation for the same acts. During the investigation, requests for authorization of surveillance and secret investigation measures, as well as for pre-trial detention, were submitted to the Coercive Measures Court (Tmc) of the Littoral and Val-de-Travers region. On August 25, 2016, A. requested his immediate release, arguing that the Tmc judges Laurent Margot and Isabelle Bieri were not impartial, having already ruled on numerous occasions in the context of the investigation. This request was rejected on October 7, 2016 by the Criminal Appeals Authority. A. then filed a criminal appeal against this decision.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It considered that the Criminal Appeals Authority did not violate federal law in rejecting the request for recusal of the two Tmc judges.
According to case law, the fact that the same judge has ruled several times in the context of the same case does not in itself constitute a ground for recusal within the meaning of Art. 56 let. b CCP, provided that they are formally different proceedings, even if they concern the same set of facts. Furthermore, the judge's prior knowledge of the file is not sufficient to demonstrate bias, unless particularly serious or repeated errors, constituting serious…