CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 février 1998

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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. February 1998 Higgins and Others v. France - 20124/92 Judgment 19.2.1998 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Court of Cassation’s failure to give reasons for decision on complaint that a court of appeal was not impartial: 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.   Government’s preliminary objections 1.   Application lodged out of time Complaint of lack of impartiality concerned Papeete Court of Appeal judgment of 7 December 1989, which had been considered by Court of Cassation in its decision of 17 December 1991 – latter decision was the one to be taken into account for purposes of calculating when six-month time-limit expired. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). 2.   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies In view of overlapping of various sets of proceedings, issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies had to be considered in light of proceedings as a whole – admittedly, grounds set out in full pleading in support of appeal on points of law against judgment of 7 December 1989 had contained no reference either to Article 6 of Convention or to a lack of impartiality – nevertheless, applicants had drawn attention to issue submitted to Convention institutions by filing submissions to effect that it was unnecessary to decide their appeal and by seeking a stay from Papeete Court of Appeal because they had filed an application for transfer of proceedings to another court on grounds of bias. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaints Extent of courts’ duty to give reasons for their decisions could vary according to nature of decision and had to be determined in light of circumstances of individual case. Court of Cassation, ruling on two applications for removal of three sets of proceedings concerning same succession dispute from Papeete Court of Appeal, ordered transfer of two sets of proceedings but made no mention of third notwithstanding that it was closely linked to other two – nothing in Court of Cassation’s judgment to indicate why outcome in respect of those proceedings had been different. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: claim dismissed. B.   Additional claim: Court had no jurisdiction. C.   Costs and expenses: reimbursed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants specified sum for costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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