Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the absence of an oral hearing; Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the non-communication of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant claimed compensation for alleged false imprisonment and torture and other ill-treatment by the police while he was in custody for which he had sought compensation. He complained that the court of first instance had denied him an oral hearing at which he could present his own direct evidence of the distress and anxiety which he had experienced.
Held: (Grand Chamber by a majority of 9 to 8) The refusal of an oral hearing had violated article 6(1). According to the court’s established case law, in proceedings before a court of first and only instance the right to a ‘public hearing’ in the sense of article 6(1) entailed an entitlement to an oral hearing unless there were exceptional circumstances that justified dispensing with such a hearing. The question was how this test was to be applied, given that the proceedings that were under challenge were before a court of first instance. The essentially personal nature of the applicant’s experience, and the determination of the level of compensation required that he be heard and that these factors outweighed the considerations of speed and efficiency on which, according to the government, the relevant law on which an oral hearing had been denied to him was based. Dissenting minority: The court’s case law had never required oral proceedings in all circumstances. Having referred to various authorities (dissenting opinion): ‘That case-law lays down three criteria for determining whether there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ which justify dispensing with a public hearing: there must be no factual or legal issue which requires a hearing; the questions which the court is required to answer must be limited in scope and no public interest must be at stake.’ and ‘Requiring domestic courts to hold a hearing every time a claim raising no particular problems is submitted to them might practically frustrate the objective of complying with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement in article 6(1) of the Convention.’
Citations:
2002-V, p 193, 36590/97, [2000] ECHR 552, [2002] ECHR 584, [2000] ECHR 554, [2002] ECHR 589
Links:
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 691)
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.174279
