CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mars 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. March 1998 J.J. v. the Netherlands - 21351/93 Judgment 27.3.1998 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adversarial trial Plaintiff in taxation proceedings in Supreme Court unable to reply to advisory opinion of advocate-general: 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 Applicant’s appeal against fiscal penalty declared inadmissible on sole ground that court registration fee had not been paid – had Supreme Court quashed decision of Court of Appeal, it would have had full jurisdiction to substitute its own decision on the merits for that of Court of Appeal or else to refer case back to same or another court of appeal – decision of Supreme Court was decisive for determination of the “criminal charge” leading to imposition of fiscal penalty on applicant – fact that applicant’s appeal on points of law to Supreme Court and latter’s decision had been limited to a preliminary question of a procedural nature not sufficient to find Article 6 § 1 to be inapplicable. B.   Compliance Similarity between essential features of procedure of Netherlands Supreme Court and Belgian Court of Cassation – the purpose of the advocate-general’s advisory opinion is to assist Supreme Court and help ensure that its case-law is consistent – duty of the Procurator-General’s department at Supreme Court to act with strictest objectivity. Great importance of part played in proceedings by member of Procurator-General’s department: his submissions contained an opinion intended to advise and influence Supreme Court – fact that it had been impossible for applicant to reply to advisory opinion had infringed his right to adversarial proceedings. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Costs and expenses: partial reimbursement. 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