CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 février 2001

.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 27 February 2001 Beer v. Austria - 30428/96 Judgment 6.2.2001 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Proceedings concerning costs: Article 6 applicable Fair hearing Equality of arms Non-communication of appeal in respect of costs: violation Facts : The applicant brought a successful action against her employer, who was ordered to reimburse her costs. The employer appealed against the costs order. The applicant was not notified of the appeal, which was granted by the Court of Appeal. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The Court saw no reason to disagree with the Commission's conclusion that this provision applies to costs proceedings if the costs at issue were incurred in the determination of civil rights and obligations, as in this case. While it is understandable that in ancillary matters, such as the determination of the cost of proceedings, the national authorities should have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy, this does not justify disregarding the fundamental principle of adversarial proceedings. In this case, the applicant was not informed of the appeal and thus had no possibility of reacting to it. This non-communication of the appeal and absence of any opportunity to reply constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court found that there was no causal link between the violation and the pecuniary loss claimed by the applicant. Moreover, it considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It made an award in respect of 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