CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 mai 1997

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. May 1997 Georgiadis v. Greece - 21522/93 Judgment 29.5.1997 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Fairness of proceedings for compensation in respect of detention followed by acquittal: 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 prevented from lodging claim for compensation on account of army tribunals' rulings - there was a "dispute". Tribunals held that no compensation should be granted to applicant - outcome of proceedings directly decisive for applicant's right to compensation. Right to compensation is of civil nature - uncontested private‑law features and fact that civil courts decide on precise extent confirm this view - Article 6 § 1 applicable. B.   Compliance Army tribunals' proprio motu rulings definitely precluded applicant from making application for compensation - procedures whereby civil rights are determined without hearing parties' submissions are incompatible with Convention. Furthermore, compensation refused by succinct reference to applicant's own gross negligence - lack of precision of concept which involves assessment of facts and decisive character of finding for applicant's right required more detailed reasons. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Given finding in respect of Article 6 § 1, not necessary to examine complaint under this head. Conclusion :   not necessary to examine complaint (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage:   Court cannot speculate as to outcome of proceedings had applicant benefited from all safeguards enshrined in Article 6 - claim rejected. B.   Non-pecuniary damage:   finding of violation provides sufficient just satisfaction. C.   Costs and expenses:   awarded on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to applicant (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