CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 juillet 2006

.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 88 July-August 2006 Pronina v. Ukraine - 63566/00 Judgment 18.7.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Failure by the domestic courts   to examine a relevant and important ground of appeal by the applicant: violation Facts : In March 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Yalta City Court against the local social welfare department, challenging the refusal of the latter to award her a higher pension. In support of her claim the applicant maintained, among other things, that under Article 46 of the Constitution her pension should not be lower than the minimum living standard. Her complaint was rejected by the Yalta City Court and later, on appeal, by the Supreme Court. Neither court considered her arguments under Article 46 of the Constitution. Law : The domestic courts had made no attempt to analyse the applicant’s claim under Article 46 of the Constitution, despite explicit references she had made before every judicial instance. By ignoring the point altogether, even though it was specific, pertinent and important, the courts had fallen short of their obligations under Article   6(1). Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 1,500 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.   © 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