CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 novembre 2004

.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 69 November 2004 Saez Maeso v. Spain - 77837/01 Judgment 9.11.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Interpretation of a rule on lodging of appeals on points of law, resulting in rejection as inadmissible of an appeal declared admissible by the same court seven years earlier: violation Article 6 § 1 Extract: “…The applicant’s appeal on points of law was dismissed [in June 2000] on the ground that he had not complied with the formal requirements as to admissibility, even although the appeal on points of law had been declared admissible [in June 1993]…. More specifically, the appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court had first been declared admissible and subsequently dismissed on account of a procedural shortcoming concerning the lodging of the appeal [section 96 of the Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction Act], without the applicant being given an opportunity to submit his observations within a specific time-limit. In the Court’s opinion, the Supreme Court’s interpretation in this case is too strict, bearing in mind, as the applicant points out, that a new law, no. 29/1998 of 13 July 1998, provides that the parties are to be informed of the existence of possible grounds for inadmissibility. Since the issue concerns the principle of legal certainty, this is not merely a problem of interpretation of a legal provision in the usual way, but concerns the interpretation of a procedural requirement which prevented an appeal being examined on the merits and thereby entailed a breach of the right to the effective protection of the courts. The Court notes that the applicant cannot be accused of negligence or of committing an error by lodging the application, which was declared admissible by the Supreme Court and then dismissed more than seven years later by the same court for failure to comply with the formal requirements. However, the Court considers that the conditions governing the submission of appeals on points of law to the Supreme Court cannot in themselves be called into question. Nonetheless, the specific combination of facts in this case, including the seven-year period between the Supreme Court’s two decisions, has destroyed the relationship of proportionality between the limitations as applied in the instant case and the consequences of their application. It follows that the particularly strict interpretation by the courts of a procedural rule has deprived the applicant of the right of access to a court with a view to obtaining a hearing for his appeal on points of law. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.”   © 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