CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 2003

.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 53 May 2003 Crişan v. Romania - 42930/98 Judgment 27.5.2003 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Adoption, during court proceedings, of a law excluding court review of the decisions of an administrative commission: violation Facts : The applicant challenged before the district court two decisions of the Commission of the Implementation of Legislative Decree No. 118/90 concerning his claims that he had been persecuted for political reasons under the Communist regime. The district court dismissed both actions as inadmissible; it referred to Emergency Order No. 41, adopted in the meantime by the Government, which had expressly repealed Article 9 of Legislative Decree No. 118/90, which provided that an interested party could challenge a decision of the Commission before the courts. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the district court. Law : Article 6 § 1 – Although it was not the purpose of the legislative reform to influence the judicial outcome of the applicant’s action before the national courts, the fact remains that the new procedure and its application made it impossible in this case for the applicant to have the decisions taken by an administrative authority not itself fulfilling the requirements of a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 reviewed by a judicial organ of unlimited jurisdiction. The fact that the courts were unable to examine the lawfulness of the decisions of the administrative authority concerning the applicant’s civil rights owing to the amendment of the legislation on the jurisdiction of the courts in the course of the proceedings impaired the very substance of the applicant’s right of access to a tribunal. Conclusion : violation (unanimous).   © 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