CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 janvier 2015

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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. 181 January 2015 Arribas Antón v. Spain - 16563/11 Judgment 20.1.2015 [Section III] Article 6 Constitutional proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Inadmissibility of amparo appeal on grounds that it had not been shown to be of special constitutional importance: no violation Facts – In July 2002 the applicant, who worked in a psychiatric hospital as a nursing assistant, was disciplined for very serious misconduct, and was debarred from working in psychiatric hospitals for one year. He appealed against the decision to a higher administrative authority, but was unsuccessful. He then took his case to the Administrative Court, which set aside the sanction imposed on him. The health service appealed. The High Court of Justice ordered that the same sanction be imposed on the applicant. His appeals against it were all dismissed. In July 2010 the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, but it was declared inadmissible on the grounds that he had not complied with the obligation to prove that his appeal was one of “special constitutional importance”. Law – Article 6 § 1: The applicant had complained that he had been denied access to the Constitutional Court when his amparo appeal was declared inadmissible, submitting that the ground of inadmissibility, introduced by Institutional Law no.   6/2007 of 24   May 2007, which required the appellant to show that the appeal was one of “special constitutional importance”, was excessively formal. The aim pursued by the legislative amendment of 2007 was legitimate, as it sought to improve the functioning of the Constitutional Court and to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights, by ensuring that cases of lesser importance did not create a backlog. In view of the specific nature of the Constitutional Court’s role as court of last resort for the protection of fundamental rights, it could be accepted that the procedure before it should be marked by a greater degree of formalism. Moreover, the fact of subjecting the admissibility of an amparo appeal to the existence of objective criteria and to a requirement of justification by the appellant, as provided for by law and interpreted by constitutional jurisprudence, was neither disproportionate nor in breach of the right of access to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court had applied the criteria in question, taking into account the date on which the amparo appeal had been lodged, 9   July 2010, in the light of its judgment no.   155/2009 of 25   June 2009, which enumerated non-exhaustively the situations that might be considered as taking on special constitutional importance. The objective criteria, which the Constitutional Court had to address and apply in its case-law, were nevertheless already mentioned in the explanatory memorandum accompanying Institutional Law no.   6/2007, which had entered into force on 25   May 2007. Moreover, the proceedings in the present case before the Constitutional Court had followed an examination of the applicant’s case by two courts before which he had been able to defend himself and which had given reasoned and non-arbitrary decisions at first instance and on appeal. Lastly, even if the Constitutional Court declared an amparo appeal inadmissible on the grounds that it did not take on the requisite special constitutional importance or that the appellant had not demonstrated the existence of such importance, that would not prevent the Court from ruling on the admissibility and merits of an application before it on that subject. In the light of the foregoing, the applicant had not been deprived of the essence of his right of access to a court. In addition, the limitations applied pursued a legitimate aim. In applying those limitations, the authorities had ensured that a reasonable relationship was maintained between the means used and the aim pursued. For those reasons the applicant had not sustained any disproportionate hindrance to his right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (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