CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; 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. November 1995 British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands - 19589/92 Judgment 20.11.1995 Article 6 Article 6-1 Access to court Fair hearing Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Patent application proceedings, availability of judicial remedy before independent and impartial tribunal, fairness of proceedings brought: no violation [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.   ARTICLE 6   §   1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability of Article 6   § 1 Not contested. B.   Compliance with Article 6   §   1 1.   Appeals Division of the Patent Office Not necessary to rule on various complaints submitted under this head, having regard to Court's conclusion as to applicant company's possible access to ordinary civil courts in the event of Appeals Division not being considered to meet requirements of Article   6   §   1. 2.   Access to civil courts No Netherlands civil court ever held itself competent to review decisions of Patent Office regarding patent applications — however, remedy offered by civil proceedings cannot for that reason be regarded as "ineffective" — equally true that no civil proceedings directed against a decision of the Appeals Division of the Patent Office have ever resulted in a contrary ruling — Court's Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment distinguished. Finding as to state of Netherlands law made in Court's Oerlemans v. the Netherlands judgment confirmed: if, after decision of Appeals Division, civil courts had found that Appeals Division was not a "tribunal" offering requisite safeguards, they would as a matter of domestic law have had full jurisdiction to rule on merits — applicant company, however, chose not to submit claim to civil courts — not for the Court to prejudge possible decision of Netherlands civil courts or, therefore, to rule in abstract as to adequacy of remedies available. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Requirements of Article   13 less strict than, and here absorbed by, those of Article 6   §   1. Conclusion : not necessary to give a ruling (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO.   1 Complaint under this head, namely denial of a judicial remedy, in substance identical to that already examined and rejected in the context of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. Conclusion : no separate issue (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