CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 juin 1993

.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 } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; 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. June 1993 Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland - 14518/89 Judgment 24.6.1993 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Public hearing Access to file of a cantonal invalidity‑insurance appeals board and no hearing in Federal Insurance Court: no violation Article 14 Discrimination Reasoning in support of a judgment by that court based on difference of sex: 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 of Article 6 § 1 State intervention: not sufficient to establish that Article   6   §   1 was inapplicable - public‑law features, but also an individual, economic right flowing from specific rules laid down in a federal statute - no convincing reason to distinguish between applicant's right to an invalidity pension and the rights to social‑insurance benefits in issue in cases of Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands and Deumeland v. Germany . Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance with Article 6 § 1 1.   Access to Appeals Board's file (a)   The Government's preliminary objection (lack of victim status) Applicant's complaint: related not so much to inspecting file, as Government had maintained, as to having documents in it handed over or, at any rate, securing photocopies of them. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). (b)   Merits of complaint Proceedings before Appeals Board: had not enabled applicant to have a complete, detailed picture of particulars supplied to the Board   ‑ however, Federal Insurance Court had remedied this shortcoming by requesting the Board to make all the documents available to the applicant, who had been able, among other things, to make copies, and then forwarding file to applicant's lawyer - neither the Appeals Board nor the Federal Insurance Court had had a report on applicant's lungs before it - hence impugned proceedings, taken as a whole, had been fair. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). 2.   Federal Insurance Court hearing (a)   The Government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Applicant had not applied to Federal Insurance Court for proceedings to be oral and public. There was an estoppel, as objection had been raised before Commission after decision on admissibility. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). (b)   Merits of complaint Applicant had unequivocally waived her right to a public hearing in the Federal Insurance Court, although the latter's Rules of Procedure provided for such a possibility - above all, dispute did not raise issues of public importance such as to make a hearing necessary -lastly, it was understandable that the national authorities should have regard to demands of efficiency and economy - systematic holding of hearings could be an obstacle to the particular diligence required in social‑security cases. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). 3.   Independence of medical experts New complaint, not raised before Commission. Conclusion : Court had no jurisdiction (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE   6   §   1 A.   The Government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Applicant had not made to Federal Insurance Court a precise complaint relating to discrimination in the exercise of a right secured by the Convention. No possibility of appeal against impugned judgment of the Federal Court and applicant had already criticised Appeals Board's decision. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of complaint Federal Insurance Court had adopted in its entirety the Appeals Board's assumption that women gave up work when they gave birth to a child - it had not attempted to probe the validity of that assumption itself by weighing arguments to the contrary. The assumption constituted the sole basis for the reasoning, thus being decisive, and introduced a difference of treatment based on the ground of sex only - advancement of the equality of the sexes was a major goal in Council of Europe member States and very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference of treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention - no reasonable and objective justification in instant case. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Non‑pecuniary damage: judgment provided sufficient satisfaction (unanimously). Pecuniary damage: Swiss law afforded possibility of applying for reopening of proceedings. Conclusion : question reserved (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses: expenses incurred in national courts and in proceedings before Convention institutions - reimbursement assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant a specified sum (eight votes to one).   © 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