CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 avril 2002

.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 41 April 2002 Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.) - 64336/01 Decision 25.4.2002 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Oral hearing Lack of oral hearing at first instance: inadmissible The applicant brought two actions, the first an application to set aside a will drafted by his late father in favour of his second wife and the second an application for a declaration that the heirs of his father's second wife were unworthy to inherit. In two decisions handed down without a hearing, the court of first instance dismissed both claims. The court maintained that it had all the information necessary to assess the merits of the first and considered that the will was not void. It rejected the second application after accepting the defendants' argument that the period for submitting such an application had lapsed. The applicant appealed against the two decisions and asked for a hearing by the court. The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal. The Court of Cassation rejected his appeals on points of law. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: in principle, the applicant had been entitled to a public hearing since none of the exceptions provided for in the second sentence of Article 6 § 1 applied. Moreover, he had asked the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation for a hearing by the court. However, the nature of the matters to be decided had not in this case required a public hearing. The court concerned had considered that the facts of the case were established and that it was merely required to decide on points of law concerning the interpretation of the Civil Code. This conclusion could not be considered unreasonable since the proceedings did not raise any issues that could not be resolved satisfactorily from a consideration of the written evidence. The only dispute had been over the interpretation of the Civil Code. When the only matters to be settled were questions of law, to which written submissions were more suited than oral arguments, an examination based on written evidence might be sufficient. The applicant had provided no evidence to persuade the Court that an oral stage after the exchange of memorials was necessary to ensure that the proceedings were conducted fairly. Finally, in certain cases it was legitimate for the authorities to take account of the need for effectiveness and economy. For example when, as in this case, the facts were not in dispute and the questions of law not unduly complicated, the fact that there had not been a public hearing did not breach the requirements of Article 6 § 1 concerning a public hearing: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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