CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 mars 2006

.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. 84 March 2006 Sale v. France - 39765/04 Judgment 21.3.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adversarial trial Leave to appeal refused in the preliminary procedure of admission of cassation appeals: no violation   Facts : In the course of proceedings concerning the applicant’s dismissal the Employment and Welfare Division of the Court of Cassation declared his appeal on points of law inadmissible, ruling that the grounds of appeal were not such as to warrant admitting the appeal. Article L. 131-6 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had introduced a preliminary procedure for the admission of appeals on points of law: after the pleadings had been filed, the case was examined by a bench of three judges which, in cases where it was obvious how the appeal should be determined, dismissed at the outset appeals which were inadmissible or not based on serious grounds. Law : Article 6(1) – The applicant complained that the reporting judge’s report had not been communicated to him, and that he had not been informed of the tenor of the advocate-general’s submissions to the Court of Cassation. When an appeal was assigned to a bench which dealt with the question of admissibility and resulted in a decision of inadmissibility, the scope for legal debate as to the merits of the appeal was considerably reduced, given that, under Article L. 131-6, the bench of three judges of the division to which the case had been allocated was required to rule “in cases where it is obvious how the appeal should be determined” . The Convention did not aim to protect rights that were purely theoretical. It would have made no difference to the outcome of the case had the reporting judge’s report been communicated to the applicant and had he had the opportunity to reply to the advocate-general’s oral submissions by a note to the court in deliberations, as the legal solution applied in the preliminary admissibility proceedings, by its very nature, was not open to discussion. 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