CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 février 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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; 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 February 1997 Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland - 18990/91 Judgment 18.2.1997 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adversarial trial Observations sent by a cantonal court to the Federal Court on appeal: 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 Cantonal court's observations not communicated to either of parties to dispute before Federal Court - cantonal court could not be regarded as opponent of either of the parties - no infringement of equality of arms. Observations in issue contained reasoned opinion on merits of appeal - unlikely that Federal Court paid them no heed - effect they actually had on Federal Court, fact that proceedings were civil and assertion of courts concerned that observations did not present any new fact or argument all of little consequence - only parties to dispute could decide whether a document called for their comments. Aim of saving time and expediting proceedings: did not justify disregarding such a fundamental principle as right to adversarial proceedings. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: claim dismissed. Non-pecuniary damage: sufficiently compensated by judgment. B.   Costs and expenses Reimbursed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum 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