CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 octobre 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. October 1998 Pérez de Rada Cavanilles v. Spain - 28090/95 Judgment 28.10.1998 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Inadmissibility, for being out of time, of reposición application against court decision whereby a settlement agreement which the applicant had sought to enforce had been declared void: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability of Article 6 Proceedings to enforce the agreement had been decisive for whether applicant’s right actually became effective or not – common ground. B.   Compliance with Article 6 Recapitulation of case-law: primarily for national authorities to interpret domestic legislation – the domestic courts had held that a reposición application dispatched within the three days prescribed by law but received two days after expiry of that period was inadmissible as being out of time, on ground that applications had to be made to appropriate court or to duty judge of same town, particularly where person making it was assisted by counsel – Court’s role confined to ascertaining whether effects of such an interpretation were compatible with Convention. Recapitulation of case-law on “right to a court” – the limitations permitted by implication must not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired – in instant case the particularly rigorous application of a procedural rule by domestic courts had deprived applicant of right of access to a court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Non-pecuniary damage: sufficiently compensated by finding of violation. Costs and expenses: specified sum awarded. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant for costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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