CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 janvier 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     30   21.01.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GARCIA RUIZ v. SPAIN     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 21 January 1999 in the case of García Ruiz v.   Spain (application no.   30544/96), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   1.   Principal facts     The applicant, Mr Faustino-Francisco García Ruiz, a Spanish national, was born in 1941 and lives at Alcorcón (Madrid). He is a lawyer.     Having lost his case at first instance in an action against M., a client, for the recovery of fees owed to him for certain non-contentious services performed in the context of foreclosure proceedings before Judge no. 19 of the Madrid Court of First Instance, the applicant appealed to the Madrid Audiencia Provincial . The first instance court had held that he had not proved that he had performed the services in question.     His appeal was dismissed on 17 March 1995. The Audiencia Provincial ruled in its judgment that there was no proof that the applicant had acted as counsel in the foreclosure proceedings before Judge no. 19 of the Madrid Court of First Instance, “although he [might] have carried out non-contentious work”.     Relying in particular on Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, the applicant then lodged an appeal de amparo with the Constitutional Court arguing that the judgment of the Audiencia Provincial gave no reply whatsoever to his arguments. In his appeal the applicant emphasised that he had indeed not acted as counsel in the foreclosure proceedings before Judge no. 19 of the Madrid Court of First Instance, but solely as M.’s agent, providing non-contentious services, advice and assistance. On 11 July 1995 the appeal was dismissed.   2.   Procedure, and composition of the Court     The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19   December 1995. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 15 September 1997 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (twenty-two votes to eight). The Spanish Government referred the case to the Court on 6 January 1998.     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the new European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol on 1 November 1998. Judgment was given a Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber   (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm ,   (Swedish), Vice-President , Antonio Pastor Ridruejo   ( Spanish), Giovanni Bonello   (Maltese), Jerzy Makarczyk   (Polish), Pranas Kūris   (Lithuanian), Riza Türmen   (Turkish), Jean-Paul Cos ta   (French), Françoise Tulkens   (Belgian), Marc Fischbach   (Luxemburger), Volodymyr Butkevych   (Ukrainian), Josep Casadevall   (Andorran), John Hedigan   (Irish), Hanne Sophie Greve   (Norwegian), András Baka   (Hungarian), Rait Maruste   (Estonian), Snejana Botoucharova   (Bulgarian), Judges ,   and also Michele de Salvia , Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]     Complaint     Mr Garcia Ruiz complained that he had not had a fair hearing in the appeal proceedings before the Madrid Audiencia Provincial , since that court had not replied to his submissions, contrary to Article   6   § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Decision of the Court     The Court first reiterated that, according to its established case-law, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. However, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument. Thus, in dismissing an appeal, an appellate court may, in principle, simply endorse the reasons for the lower court’s decision.     In the present case the Court noted that at first instance judge no. 12 of the Madrid Court of First Instance had taken into account in his decision the defendant’s statements denying the facts alleged by the applicant in his claim. It had held that the evidence of a witness called by the applicant was not conclusive and ruled that the applicant had not proved that he had performed the services for which he was claiming a fee. On appeal the Audiencia Provincial had first stated that it accepted and deemed to be reproduced in its own decision the statement of the facts set out in the judgment at first instance. It had gone on to say that it likewise endorsed the legal reasoning of the impugned decision in so far as it was not incompatible with its own findings. On that point, it had held that there was not the slightest evidence in the case file to prove that the applicant had acted as counsel in the foreclosure proceedings, although he might have performed non-contentious services. It had therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment delivered at first instance. The case had then been referred to the Constitutional Court, which, in its judgment of 11 July 1995, had dismissed the applicant’s appeal de amparo on the grounds that, according to the trial courts, the applicant had not established that he had rendered the professional services for which he was claiming a fee and that assessment of the facts was a matter over which the Constitutional Court did not have jurisdiction.     In so far as the applicant’s complaint might be understood to concern assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterated that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts.     The Court noted that the applicant had had the benefit of adversarial proceedings. At the various stages of those proceedings he had been able to submit the arguments he considered relevant to his case. The factual and legal reasons for the first-instance decision dismissing his claim had been set out at length. In the judgment at the appeal stage the Audiencia Provincial had endorsed the statement of the facts and the legal reasoning set out in the judgment at first instance in so far as they did not conflict with its own findings. The applicant could not therefore validly argue that this judgment lacked reasons, even though in the present case a more substantial statement of reasons might have been desirable.     In conclusion, the Court considered that, taken as a whole, the proceedings in issue had been fair for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that there had been no violation of that provision.     [see paragraphs 26-30 of the judgment and its operative part]     The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr) on the day of their delivery.     Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Mr Roderick LIDDELL Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91 [1] .     This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.