CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 juillet 2000

.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 20 July 2000 Société Guerin Automobiles v. the 15 Member States of the European Union (dec.) - 51717/99 Decision 4.7.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Absence of indication of available remedies and time-limits in decisions subject to appeal: inadmissible The applicant company brought actions before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for annulment of certain decisions of the European Commission. The actions were dismissed for failure to comply with the two-month period for instituting proceedings laid down in Article 173 of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission decisions did not mention the remedies available or the period prescribed for instituting proceedings. However, the Court of First Instance held that there was no requirement under Community law for such information to be given. On appeal against one of the judgments, the Court of Justice upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance. Inadmissible under Articles 6 and 13: The guarantees provided by Articles 6 and 13 seek to avoid the introduction of procedural rules which would have the effect of impeding access by the public to a remedy. In the present case, the applicant does not criticise the existing rules, but complains that they do not appear on measures which are open to challenge, and thus claims guarantees in addition to those rules. However, the articles on which the applicant relies do not cover the right to be informed of the remedies and time-limits for instituting proceedings by information to that effect on measures which are open to challenge: inadmissible ratione materiae (the Court found it unnecessary to consider the compatibility ratione personae of the application with 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