CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 juillet 1999

.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 8 July 1999 Scarth v. the United Kingdom - 33745/96 Judgment 22.7.1999 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Absence of public hearing in arbitration proceedings: violation Facts : Proceedings were brought against the applicant for recovery of debt. In view of the amount involved, the case was referred for hearing by way of arbitration. The applicant applied for the hearing to be held in public but this request was refused and the hearing consequently took place in private. The arbitrator found in favour of the plaintiff. The applicant sought to have the award set aside; after a hearing in private, the application was refused. An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also refused, after the applicant had been heard in open court. Law : The Government conceded that there had been a violation and the Court saw no reason to disagree with the Commission's conclusion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41: The Court found that there was no causal link between the violation of the Convention and the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant. It further considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It made an award in respect of the applicant's costs.   © 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