CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 avril 1994

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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. April 1994 Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands - 16034/90 Judgment 19.4.1994 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Independent tribunal Proceedings before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal regarding dairy farmer's reference quantity of milk: violation, no 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 A.   "Independent tribunal" Power to give a binding decision which may not be altered by a non-judicial authority to the detriment of an individual party is inherent in the very notion of a "tribunal" — whether or not the requirements of Article   6 have been met cannot be assessed with reference to the applicant's chances of success alone, since this provision does not guarantee any particular outcome. At the material time section 74 of the 1954 Industrial Appeals Act allowed the Minister partially or completely to deprive a judgment of the Tribunal of its effect to the detriment of an individual party; one of the basic attributes of a "tribunal" was therefore missing - this defect was not remedied by any form of subsequent review. Conclusion : violation (six votes to three). B.   Fairness of proceedings Applicant only produced his figure at the latest possible stage, namely at the oral hearing after the Minister had responded in writing to his written pleadings — given these circumstances, the refusal of the Tribunal to consider the applicant's new figure does not constitute a breach of the principle of "equality of arms". Article   6   §   1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument — nor is the European Court called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage Claim based on the assumption that the judgment of the Tribunal would have been favourable to the applicant had the alleged violations of Article 6   §   1 not taken place — however, it is by no means clear that the outcome of the case would have been different in the absence of the violation found — claim under this head dismissed. B.   Costs and expenses Costs incurred in Strasbourg proceedings: reimbursement assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant (eight votes to one).   © 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