CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 octobre 1996

.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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; 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. October 1996 Ankerl v. Switzerland - 17748/91 Judgment 23.10.1996 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Spouse of party to civil trial unable to be heard on oath as a witness: no 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.   PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES) Complaint raised at least in substance before the Federal Court, which had therefore had an adequate opportunity to remedy by its own means the situation complained of. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF CONVENTION Requirement of "equality of arms" applies also to litigation in which private interests are opposed and implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case, including his evidence, under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent - a difference of treatment in respect of hearing of parties' witnesses may therefore be such as to infringe the principle in question. The Court did not see how giving of evidence on oath by applicant's spouse could have influenced outcome of proceedings - applicant not placed at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 6 §   1 Question of compliance with principle of equality of arms already determined under Article 6 § 1 taken alone. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaint (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