CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 janvier 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 2 January 1999 García Ruiz v. Spain [GC] - 30544/96 Judgment 21.1.1999 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Failure of appeal court to reply to arguments: no violation   Facts : The applicant, a Spanish national, was born in 1941 and lives at Alcorcón (Madrid). He is a lawyer. Having lost his case at first instance in an action against M., a client, for the recovery of fees owed to him for certain non-contentious services performed in the context of foreclosure proceedings before Judge No.   19 of the Madrid Court of First Instance, the applicant appealed to the Madrid Audiencia Provincial . The first instance court had held that he had not proved that he had performed the services in question. His appeal was dismissed on 17 March 1995. The Audiencia Provincial ruled in its judgment that there was no proof that the applicant had acted as counsel in the foreclosure proceedings before Judge No.   19 of the Madrid Court of First Instance, “although he [might] have carried out non-contentious work”. Relying in particular on Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, the applicant then lodged an appeal de amparo with the Constitutional Court arguing that the judgment of the Audiencia Provincial gave no reply whatsoever to his arguments. In his appeal the applicant emphasised that he had indeed not acted as counsel in the foreclosure proceedings before Judge Nº 19 of the Madrid Court of First Instance, but solely as M.’s agent, providing non-contentious services, advice and assistance. On 11   July 1995 the appeal was dismissed. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair hearing in the appeal proceedings before the Madrid Audiencia Provincial , since that court had not replied to his submissions, contrary to Article   6   § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Law : The Court first reiterated that, according to its established case-law, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. However, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument. Thus, in dismissing an appeal, an appellate court may, in principle, simply endorse the reasons for the lower court’s decision. In the present case the Court noted that at first instance judge No. 12 of the Madrid Court of First Instance had taken into account in his decision the defendant’s statements denying the facts alleged by the applicant in his claim. It had held that the evidence of a witness called by the applicant was not conclusive and ruled that the applicant had not proved that he had performed the services for which he was claiming a fee. On appeal the Audiencia Provincial had first stated that it accepted and deemed to be reproduced in its own decision the statement of the facts set out in the judgment at first instance. It had gone on to say that it likewise endorsed the legal reasoning of the impugned decision in so far as it was not incompatible with its own findings. On that point, it had held that there was not the slightest evidence in the case file to prove that the applicant had acted as counsel in the foreclosure proceedings, although he might have performed non-contentious services. It had therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment delivered at first instance. The case had then been referred to the Constitutional Court, which, in its judgment of 11 July 1995, had dismissed the applicant’s appeal de amparo on the grounds that, according to the trial courts, the applicant had not established that he had rendered the professional services for which he was claiming a fee and that assessment of the facts was a matter over which the Constitutional Court did not have jurisdiction. In so far as the applicant’s complaint might be understood to concern assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterated that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts. The Court noted that the applicant had had the benefit of adversarial proceedings. At the various stages of those proceedings he had been able to submit the arguments he considered relevant to his case. The factual and legal reasons for the first-instance decision dismissing his claim had been set out at length. In the judgment at the appeal stage the Audiencia Provincial had endorsed the statement of the facts and the legal reasoning set out in the judgment at first instance in so far as they did not conflict with its own findings. The applicant could not therefore validly argue that this judgment lacked reasons, even though in the present case a more substantial statement of reasons might have been desirable.   In conclusion, the Court considered that, taken as a whole, the proceedings in issue had been fair for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that there had been no violation of that provision. 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