CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 avril 1999

.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 5 April 1999 De Virgilis v. Italy (dec.) - 39211/98 Decision 20.4.1999 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Cassation appeal declared inadmissible on the ground that the appellant had not set out the facts of the case: inadmissible The applicant, a lawyer, was suspected of having obtained an authority to act from a client indirectly, through an intermediary. Disciplinary proceedings were brought against him and he received a reprimand from the disciplinary body. That penalty was upheld on appeal. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation on the ground that the facts of the case had not been set out in the notice of appeal. The applicant complained that the rules had been construed too strictly and that, as a result, he had been denied access to a court. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: It was unnecessary in the instant case to decide whether Article 6 § 1 was applicable. Rules laying down a prescribed form were intended to ensure proper administration and litigants had to expect that they would be applied. However, neither the rules concerned nor their application should prevent litigants from using available remedies. In the instant case, there was nothing to suggest that the rules exempted appellants in proceedings before the Court of Cassation from the obligation to provide a summary of the facts of the case. Given the special nature of the Court of Cassation’s role, the Court was able to accept that the procedure followed before it might be more formal. Furthermore, the applicant’s case had been considered by two bodies having full jurisdiction and the fairness of the proceedings before those bodies had not been called into question before the Court: 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