CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 février 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 } .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 } .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 February 1996 Lobo Machado v. Portugal - 15764/89 Judgment 20.2.1996 [GC] Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adversarial trial Plaintiff in proceedings relating to social rights unable to obtain a copy of the written opinion of a representative of the Attorney-General's department at the Supreme Court or to reply to it, and presence of that representative at the court's private sitting: 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 Nature of functions of Attorney-General's department at Supreme Court: to assist the court, help ensure that its case-law was consistent and to uphold the public interest. Great importance of part actually played in proceedings by member of Attorney-General's department: his submissions contained an opinion designed to advise and accordingly influence the Supreme Court   - what had been at stake for the applicant in the proceedings before that court - fact that it had been impossible for applicant to obtain a copy of the opinion before judgment was given and to reply to it had infringed his right to adversarial proceedings. Presence of member of Attorney-General's department at Supreme Court's private sitting had afforded, if only to outward appearances, an additional opportunity to bolster his opinion without fear of contradiction. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Complaint that Supreme Court had been neither impartial nor independent - no need for a ruling. II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Complaint not reiterated before the Court: no need for it to be considered of Court's own motion. Conclusion : unnecessary to rule on the complaint (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: sufficiently compensated by the finding of a breach. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursement. 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