CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-182185
- Date
- 13 mars 2018
- Publication
- 13 mars 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 13 March 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 72157/14 Nelson Alexandre BERNARDINO SILVESTRE against Portugal lodged on 5 November 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s unsuccessful application for prison leave. On 23 September 2014 the Lisbon Tribunal for the Execution of Penalties dismissed the application on the ground that the leave, if granted, “would not offer any prospect of success”. No appeal lay against this decision. Had the application been granted, however, the public prosecutor would have been entitled to lodge an appeal. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, did the applicant possess a “right” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Boulois v.   Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, §§ 90 to 94, ECHR 2012)?   2.     If Article 6 § 1 was applicable, was the applicant’s right to access to a court respected, given that the only appeal possible in such cases is apparently that of the public prosecutor in case the application was granted? Is this procedural asymmetry compatible with the principle of “equality of arms” inherent in the notion of a fair hearing for the purposes of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 13 mars 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-182185
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel