CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 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 65 June 2004 Valová, Slezák and Slezák v. Slovakia - 44925/98 Judgment 1.6.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Oral hearing Lack of oral hearing in administrative proceedings: no violation Extract: “According to the Court’s established case-law, in proceedings before a court of first and only instance the right to a “public hearing” in the sense of Article 6 § 1 entails an entitlement to an oral hearing unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify dispensing with such a hearing.     In particular, an oral hearing may not be required under Article 6 §   1, inter alia , where a tribunal is only called upon to decide on questions of law of no particular complexity. The Court notes that in its judgment … the Nitra Regional Court expressly stated that the only point in question was a question of law: it was called upon to decide whether the applicants had standing … to have the property restored. From this point of view the crucial issue was whether or not the private company of which the applicants’ predecessors had been members and from which the land in question had been taken away had been a legal person. That issue was determined in the judgment of the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court … delivered in the context of proceedings which concerned a different restitution claim of the applicants. Prior to the delivery of that judgment the Regional Court held an oral hearing in the course of which the applicants were free to submit their arguments. In these circumstances, the Court considers that another public hearing was not indispensable under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention when deciding on the point at issue. The Court does not find on the evidence before it that the applicants’ submissions to the Nitra Regional Court were capable of raising any issues of fact or of law pertaining to their restitution claim which were of such a nature as to require an oral hearing for their disposition. At the relevant time Section 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure permitted courts to deliver a judgment without prior oral hearing in similar cases.”   © 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