CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   605 30.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DATTEL v. LUXEMBOURG (No. 2)   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dattel v. Luxembourg (No. 2) (application no. 18522/06). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the rejection of an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   The four applicants, Dany and Margot Dattel and their children Sascha and Nathalie Dattel, are German nationals who live in Cologne (Germany). Dany Dattel’s date of birth has not been specified and the other applicants were born in 1939, 1966 and 1968 respectively.   Dany Dattel’s mother, R.F., invested in currency futures with the H.B. Luxembourg bank (“HBL”), a subsidiary of HBK in Cologne (Germany). HBL went into liquidation and, in a first set of proceedings, R.F. and subsequently the applicants, as her heirs, unsuccessfully sought an order for payment of the debt owed to them by the bank.   The bank argued that the debt was null and void. According to an expert report, money had been paid into R.F.’s account from another account credited through fraudulent transactions effected by Dany Dattel, the head of HBK’s currency operations in Cologne. On that basis the County Court declared the debt null and void.   In August 2005 the European Court of Human Rights, to which the applicants had applied, gave a judgment in which it found a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the length of the proceedings.   In July 2001 the applicants instituted a second set of civil proceedings with a view to recovering their debt, but without success. On 30 October 2002 the County Court declared the application inadmissible because the court decisions pronounced in the first set of proceedings were res judicata .   On 10 November 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants on account of the vagueness of their grounds of appeal, which it considered were “a string of grounds for opening cassation proceedings, reproduced piecemeal in the different limbs, with no logical connection between them, making it impossible to grasp their meaning and scope”.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 May 2006. The admissibility and merits were examined at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the applicants alleged that the dismissal of their appeal on points of law had breached their right of access to a court and that the decisions against them had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   Decision of the Court   Article 6   §   1   The requirement for clarity in the wording of grounds for appeal on points of law pursued the legitimate aim of enabling the Court of Cassation to perform its judicial review function.   The applicants’ main complaint before the Court of Cassation was that the appellate courts had refused to examine their rights in respect of the first bank account because other judges had already examined their rights in respect of the second account.   The Court of Cassation had dismissed their appeal on points of law on account of the vagueness of their grounds of appeal. The European Court found that the clarity required by the Court of Cassation was not absolutely essential in order for it to carry out its review function. Such a requirement considerably diminished the protection afforded by the Supreme Court.   In its overly formalistic approach, the dismissal of the applicants’ appeal had prevented them from having the Court of Cassation examine the merits of their case. The Court accordingly found that the restriction imposed on their right of access to a court was not proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, and held that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court saw nothing arbitrary in the manner in which the domestic courts had reached the conclusion that the debt in respect of both bank accounts had been illegal. The alleged debt had not been sufficiently established to qualify as an “asset” attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants’ complaint under this provision was therefore rejected.     Judge Vajić expressed a concurring opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.