CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 106 March 2008 Perić v. Croatia - 34499/06 Judgment 27.3.2008 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Refusal to hear witnesses called by one party to a civil action for reasons which contradicted the court’s decision to hear witnesses called by the other party: violation   Facts : In 1993 the applicant drew up a contract for two carers to look after her in return for her property when she died. In October 2002 she brought civil proceedings seeking to terminate that contract claiming that the carers had not provided her with the requisite care. During the proceedings, the first-instance court took statements from both parties. At the next hearing held in March 2003, which the applicant’s counsel was unable to attend pending urgent surgery, the court heard two witnesses who had been called by the defence. At the next hearing the court heard two other defence witnesses, but refused the applicant’s counsel’s request to call five other witnesses. Shortly afterwards, the court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The judgment stated, inter alia , that the factual background of the case had already been fully established on the basis of the parties’ statements and enclosed documents – notably the impugned contract – and that it had therefore been unnecessary to hear the witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff. The applicant challenged that judgment, but to no avail. Law : During the course of the proceedings the applicant had sought to call six witnesses, who, in her view, could have shown that the defendants had failed to provide her with adequate care and therefore to fulfil their contractual obligations. Even though a domestic court had a certain margin of appreciation in admitting evidence, it was nonetheless obliged to give reasons for its decisions. In the applicant’s case the proposed witnesses were not heard because the factual background of the case had apparently already been clearly established solely on the basis of the parties’ testimonies and the impugned contract. Despite that, the first-instance court subsequently heard four witnesses called by the defence. Bearing in mind that the concept of equality of arms attached significant importance to appearances, the Court concluded that the applicant had not been afforded a fair trial in so far as the domestic courts had refused to hear the applicant’s witnesses for reasons which were in contradiction with its willingness to hear witnesses proposed by the defendants. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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