CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     945 10.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] [1] Koottummel v. Austria (application no. 49616/06)   NO HEARING BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN a case concerning a work permit   Violation of Article   6 (1)   (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Ms Geethakumari Koottummel, is an Austrian national   who was born in India and lives in Lustenau where she runs an Indian restaurant with Ayurvedic cuisine.   She requested an employment permit as a key worker for a specific person from the South of India whom she wanted to hire as a cook (Ayurvedic chef)   in her restaurant. The Dornbirn Labour Market Sevice refused her request finding that the chef did not meet the legal requirements to be a key worker in Austria. Ms Koottummel appealed before the administrative court and requested an oral hearing. She submitted that the authorities had failed to assess the evidence properly and to give appropriate reasons for their refusal. The administrative court dismissed both her complaints: the one   on the merits and the one requesting an oral hearing; as regards the latter it held that an oral hearing was not likely to help clarify her case. The court’s decision was brought to the knowledge of Ms   Koottummel’s lawyer in June 2006.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, Ms Koottummel complained   about the lack of an oral hearing before the administrative court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on   6 December 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajic (Croatia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbijan), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Georgio Malinverni (Switzerland) George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and Soren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the administrative court which had decided on Ms Koottummel’s complaints had been the first and only tribunal dealing with her case; she had therefore been entitled, as a matter of principle, to a public oral hearing unless the proceedings had concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions. As this had not been the case in   the proceedings brought by Ms   Koottummel, the administrative court had been obliged to hold a hearing. Given that it had not done so, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses.   ***   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 Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) 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] [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.