Information Note on the Court’s case-law 61

February 2004

Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.) - 63151/00

Decision 14.2.2004 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Public hearing

Liechtenstein’s reservation concerning the right to a hearing and public pronouncement of judgment

Impartial tribunal

Alleged lack of impartiality in composition of Constitutional Court: admissible

Facts : The ap plicants inherited two plots of land which had been designated by the municipality as non-building land. Their claim for compensation for a de facto expropriation was dismissed by the Government. The applicants then filed an appeal to the Administrative Co urt, presided by judge G., alleging, inter alia , that they had not had a hearing. The appeal was dismissed by the court, which recalled that there was no right to a public hearing in administrative proceedings. In their subsequent appeal to the Constitutio nal Court, the applicants alleged that the principle of equality of arms had been violated by the Administrative Court, given that during the proceedings the municipality had made new submissions which had not been served on them. In addition, when the app licants learned of the panel of five judges which would examine their case at the Constitutional Court, they filed a motion for bias, as one of the judges was a partner of G in a law firm. The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. Concerning the al leged lack of equality of arms, it found that whilst a procedural violation had taken place, no prejudice had resulted from it. As regards the allegation of bias, it did not find necessary the disqualification of a judge who was merely acquainted with a ju dge who had taken part in the impugned decision.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1 as regards the alleged lack of impartiality of a Constitutional Court judge and the alleged violation of the principle of equality of arms.

Inadmissible under 6 § 1 (public hearing): Concerning the complaint of the lack of a hearing before the Administrative and Constitutional Courts and the lack of public pronouncement of their decisions, the reservation by Liechtenstein in respect of Article 6 came into play: the reservation excluded the holding of hearings and the public pronouncement of judgments in the proceedings in this case. Moreover, the reservation was not of a general character and was worded precisely to provide safeguards against an extensive interpretat ion of its application:  incompatible ratione materiae.

© 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