CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juillet 1995

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. July 1995 Kerojärvi v. Finland - 17506/90 Judgment 19.7.1995 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Fair hearing Omission by Supreme Court to take measures to make case documents available to appellant in compensation proceedings: Article 6 § 1 applicable ; violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention Court's examination confined to proceedings in Supreme Court, those at first instance in Insurance Court falling outside Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis. A.   Applicability 1.   Existence of a dispute ("contestation") over a "right" Principles of Court's case-law reiterated. Not necessary to resolve conflict concerning Government's change of stance as regards competence of Supreme Court since nothing to suggest that it could not have upheld the appeal had it disagreed with Insurance Court's conclusion on merits - outcome of proceedings in Supreme Court was thus directly decisive for applicant's asserted right to compensation under 1948 Act. 2.   Whether the right at issue was a civil right No reason to distinguish present case from previous cases in which Court found that disputes over benefits under social-security scheme concerned "civil rights". Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance Proceedings in Insurance Court could be taken into account as background to issue whether those in Supreme Court were fair: Insurance Court had rejected applicant's claim without transmitting to him documents which it had obtained from administrative authorities - applicant apparently made aware of this only upon notification of Insurance Court's decision - possibility to consult documents on case file of that court of no significance for assessment of fairness of proceedings in Supreme Court. In light of practice not to communicate documents of kind in question, Supreme Court could assume that documents not transmitted to applicant by lower court and hence that his capability of challenging contested decision was adversely affected - Supreme Court could moreover assume that applicant, who did not have legal assistance, would not be aware of said practice - despite these circumstances the Supreme Court, which was competent to examine the merits, did not take any measures to make the documents available to him - not material to Supreme Court's resultant duty under Article 6 § 1 either that applicant did not complain about non-communication of the documents mentioned in Insurance Court's decision or that he had access to case file in Supreme Court - in short the procedure before Supreme Court was not such as to allow proper participation of applicant - in view of above, he could not be said to have received a fair trial in the Supreme Court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage : finding of a breach sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses : partial reimbursement awarded. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes