CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 2005

.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. 77 July-August 2005 Turczanik v. Poland - 38064/97 Judgment 5.7.2005 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal of lawyers Bar to take into account the instructions of the cassation jurisdiction in the context of a cassation appeal with an application for the discharge of the case: violation   Facts : The Bar Council had registered the applicant on its regional list of practising lawyers, but refused to register his office address. As this was a prerequisite for being allowed to practise as a lawyer, the applicant applied to have his office registered at the address he had given. The application was dismissed by both the Regional and the National Bar Council. The Supreme Administrative Court set the decision aside on the ground that no valid reason had been given for refusing to register the applicant’s office at the address he had indicated. The court issued legally binding directions regarding decisions on the subject, but the Bar Councils failed to comply with them, despite further judgments setting their decisions aside. Under domestic law, decisions by the Bar Council regarding the registration of lawyers’ office addresses are administrative decisions. The opinion expressed by the Supreme Administrative Court is binding. Law : Article 6(1) – Access to a court : Unlike the Hornsby case, the instant case did not concern an enforceable decision bringing proceedings to a close, but rather a series of judgments in the same set of administrative proceedings setting aside repeatedly the decisions of a lower court which had refused to comply with the directions of the higher judicial authority. The Court considered that those decisions formed an integral part of the “trial” within the meaning of Article 6. A further difference lay in the fact that the Bar Councils did not have the status of administrative authorities within the domestic legal system.   The fact remained that their decision regarding the registered address of a lawyer was of an administrative nature and fell clearly within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Administrative Court. The decisions of that court had given clear indications as to the aspects to be taken into account by the Bar Councils in re‑examining the case. The Bar Councils had refused to comply, and the applicant had not had an effective remedy enabling him to compel them to comply with the decision of the highest administrative court in the country. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). N.B. The Court also considered that the length of the administrative proceedings concerning the registration of the applicant’s office address had been contrary to Article 6(1), and that there had been no violation of Article 13 as to the alleged absence of a remedy in that regard. Article 41 – The Court awarded specified sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   © 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