CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   824 05.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Nunes Guerreiro v. Luxembourg (application no. 33094/07)   APPEAL TO THE COURT OF CASSATION DISMISSED ON OVERLY FORMALISTIC GROUNDS   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Fernando Nunes Guerreiro, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1960 and lives in Grevenmacher (Luxembourg). On 15 December 2004 he was refused a disability pension. His subsequent appeals against that decision were likewise dismissed, first on 17 June 2005 by the Social Insurance Arbitration Board and then on 1 February 2006 by the Higher Social Insurance Board. He appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation through the lawyer who had represented him in the proceedings before the lower courts. As the grounds for appeal the lawyer submitted that the lower courts had misinterpreted the law in declaring his appeal ill-founded; in his arguments in support of the appeal, he explained how in his view the legal provisions should have been interpreted. On 1 February 2007 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, holding that the grounds for it did not explain how the legal provisions cited had been infringed or incorrectly applied. According to a principle established by the Court of Cassation, only the grounds for appeal as submitted by the appellant are considered, and if it their formulation were incomplete, the arguments raised in support cannot remedy their shortcomings.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Nunes Guerreiro complained that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court, since the Court of Cassation had failed to address the arguments raised in his written pleadings before it. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 31 July 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The clarity required by the Luxembourg Court of Cassation in the formulation of grounds of appeal pursued the legitimate aim of enabling it to carry out its review on points of law.   The Court had to examine whether that requirement had been applied in a manner proportionate to the aim pursued. It reiterated that pleadings before the Court of Cassation should be considered as a whole, in that appellants had to raise their grievances in respect of the appellate court’s judgment either in the actual grounds for appeal or, if need be, in the arguments in support of them. Mr Nunes Guerreiro could not be said to have failed to satisfy that requirement, as his pleadings before the Court of Cassation had set out the decisive aspects of the case and his grievances concerning the appealed judgment.   The clarity required by the Court of Cassation in the formulation of the grounds for appeal was not essential for it to be able to carry out its review. Such a requirement considerably diminished the protection of individuals’ rights in the Court of Cassation, especially in view of the fact that Luxembourg did not have a system of specialist lawyers before that court. In those circumstances, declaring the grounds for appeal inadmissible as lacking the requisite clarity had amounted to an overly formalistic approach, which had prevented Mr Nunes Guerreiro from obtaining a ruling by the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeal.   The restriction imposed on Mr Nunes Guerreiro’s right of access to a court had therefore not been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   *** This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.