Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
‘the right to a court would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6(1) should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants – proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious – without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the ‘trial’ for the purposes of Article 6′.
Citations:
22774/93, ECHR 1999-V, (1999) 30 EHRR 756, [1999] ECHR 65, [1999] ECHR 65
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Pulcini v Italy ECHR 17-Apr-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The applicant complained of undue delay . .
Cited – Miscioscia v Italy ECHR 31-Jul-2003
The applicant asserted that his rights had been infringed by the prolonged delay in returning to him possession of an apartment he had let. It had taken from 1993 to April 2001 to complete the judicial proceedings.
Held: The court had no . .
Applied – Scurci Chimenti v Italy ECHR 19-Dec-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The applicant had let her flat. Her . .
Cited – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.165753
