CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 septembre 2016

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 199 August-September 2016 Trevisanato v. Italy - 32610/07 Judgment 15.9.2016 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Inadmissibility of appeal on points of law due to failure to comply with statutory requirement to formulate a “legal question” at the end of a ground of appeal: no violation Facts – In 2007, having lost an appeal in an employment dispute, the applicant wished to take his case to the Court of Cassation. But that court declared his appeal inadmissible for failure to formulate the point of law ( quesito di diritto ) underlying his ground of appeal, as then required by the Code of Civil Procedure*. Law – Article 6 § 1: The domestic provision in question had pursued a legitimate aim, in seeking to reconcile the requirements of legal certainty and of the proper administration of justice. According to the case-law of the Court of Cassation prior to the applicant’s appeal, the point of law to be set out represented the meeting-point between the solution in the specific case and the formulation of a general legal principle applicable to similar cases. The aim pursued was thus to preserve the role of the Court of Cassation in ensuring a uniform interpretation of the law, while preserving the appellant’s interest in obtaining, if appropriate, the quashing of the decision appealed against. As to the proportionality of the measure in relation to the aim pursued, the formal requirement imposed on the applicant had not been excessive. The rule applied by the Court of Cassation was not judge-made but had been introduced by the legislature through the Code of Civil Procedure, in fact well before the lodging of the appeal in question. The applicant’s lawyer should thus have been aware of the relevant obligations and could have foreseen the consequences of failure to comply with the rule, based on the wording of the statutory provision and the Court of Cassation’s interpretation, which had been sufficiently clear and coherent. To have required the applicant to conclude his ground of appeal with a paragraph summing up the reasoning and explicitly identifying the legal principle alleged to have been breached had not entailed any particular effort on the part of the applicant’s lawyer. It was moreover pointed out that only lawyers registered on a special list on the basis of certain qualifications were entitled to represent parties before the Italian Court of Cassation. Accordingly, the decision could not be regarded as an excessively formalistic interpretation of the ordinary rules such as to preclude an examination on the merits of the applicant’s case. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). *   Article 366 bis , which was repealed in 2009.   © 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