CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 octobre 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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 No. October 1993 Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands - 14448/88 Judgment 27.10.1993 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Application, in civil proceedings, of rule of evidence that a party may not be heard as a witness in his own case: 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 The Court is not called upon to rule in general whether it is permissible to exclude the evidence of a person in civil proceedings to which he is a party - nor is it called upon to examine Netherlands law of evidence in civil procedure in abstracto . The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was permitted, were "fair" within the meaning of Article 6   §   1. The requirements inherent in the concept of "fair hearing" are not necessarily the same in cases concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations as they are in cases concerning the determination of a criminal charge - Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases. Nevertheless, the requirement of "equality of arms", in the sense of a "fair balance" between the parties, applies in principle to such cases as well as to criminal cases. As regards litigation involving opposing private interests, "equality of arms" 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.   During certain negotiations, the applicant company's managing director and the bank's branch manager acted on an equal footing, both being empowered to negotiate on behalf of their respective parties - it is therefore difficult to see why they should not both have been allowed to give evidence - the applicant company was therefore placed at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the bank. Conclusion : violation (five votes to four). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages Claims based on the assumption that applicant company would have won its case if the national courts had allowed its managing director to testify - the Court could not accept this assumption without itself assessing the evidence - these claims accordingly dismissed. B.   Costs and expenses -   incurred in domestic proceedings: claims dismissed for the same reasons; -   incurred in Strasbourg proceedings: reimbursement assessed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay 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