CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 janvier 2004

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 60 January 2004 Guigue and SGEN-CFDT v. France (dec.) - 59821/00 Decision 6.1.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Longer time-limit for prosecution than for other parties with regard to lodging appeals: inadmissible Extract : “The Court also observes that although the period of ten days for lodging an appeal was short, it was not so short as to deprive the applicants of the opportunity to make meaningful use of that remedy. The fact that that period is notably shorter for private parties than for Principal State Counsel – whose position, moreover, is different – cannot in the Court’s opinion place the former at a ‘substantial disadvantage’ vis-à-vis the latter within the meaning of the De Haes and Gijsels judgment, even accepting that Principal State Counsel may be regarded as their ‘opponent’ within the meaning of the same judgment.   … having regard to the fact that Article 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not deprive applicants of a remedy available to Principal State Counsel but merely lays down different formal requirements and time-limits for its use, the Court considers that the applicants cannot maintain that there was a breach of the principle of ‘equality of arms’ inherent in the concept of a fair hearing.”   © 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