CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 novembre 1994

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; 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 November 1994 Ortenberg v. Austria - 12884/87 Judgment 25.11.1994 Article 6 Article 6-1 Access to court Civil rights and obligations Fair hearing Objection to the issue of a building permit: Article 6 § 1 applicable: 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 Close link between proceedings brought by applicant and consequences of their outcome for her property — right in question a "civil" one. Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance 1.   Access to a court Constitutional Court: did not have full jurisdiction. Administrative Court: had had to rule on a decision taken by an administrative authority on grounds of expediency — nature of complaints raised — requirements of Article 6 § 1 fulfilled. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). 2.   Fair hearing Applicant had not pointed to any feature that might cast doubt on the fairness of the proceedings in the Administrative Court. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). 3.   Public hearing Complaint not raised before the Commission. Conclusion : no jurisdiction (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 Complaint had been declared inadmissible by Commission as being out of time. Conclusion : no jurisdiction (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