CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 septembre 1995

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September 1995 Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands - 15379/89 and 15346/89 Judgment 28.9.1995 Article 6 Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Proceedings instituted by the former accused for obtaining reimbursement of legal costs and compensation for restrictions on liberty following acquittal: Article 6 § 1 not applicable [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Compass of the case before the Court delimited by the Commission's decision on admissibility. Conclusion : no jurisdiction to entertain complaints declared inadmissible (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION As to whether there was a "dispute" over a "right": principles following from Court's case-law recalled. Right to reimbursement of necessary legal costs or compensation for lawful restrictions on liberty cannot be derived from Article 6   §   2 nor from any other provision of Convention or Protocols — question whether such a right can be said in any particular case to exist must be answered solely with reference to domestic law. Grant to public authority of wide discretion and relevant rulings of Netherlands Supreme Court indicate that no actual right to such reimbursement or compensation is recognised in Netherlands law. Whether or not the impugned proceedings involved a "dispute", the claims asserted by the applicants did not in any event concern a "right" which could arguably be said to be recognised under Netherlands law. Conclusion : Article 6   §   1 not applicable (eight votes to one); no violation of Article 6   §   1 (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Not referred to in the proceedings before the Court. Conclusion : not necessary for the Court to address Mr Masson's complaints under this provision (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes