Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 130

May 2010

Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein ( dec. ) - 29061/08

Decision 11.5.2010 [Section V]

Article 35

Article 35-3

Ratione materiae

Refusal to reopen civil proceedings following finding of Article 6 violation not based on relevant new grounds capable of giving rise to a fresh violation: inadmissible

Facts – In a judgment of 19 May 2005 (application no. 63151/00) the European Court found a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in that they had not been afforded an opportunity to comment on their opponent’s observations in proceedings for compensation before an administrative court. The Court declined, however, to make an award in respect of pecuniary damage as it found that there was no causal link between the violation found and the alleged damage and it was not called upon to speculate on what the outcome would have been if the proceedings had complied with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Court also refused the applicants’ request for an order requiring the domestic proceedings to be reopened. The applicants subsequently lodged a request with the domestic courts to reopen the proceedings. In dismissing an appeal by the applicants against a refusal to grant that request, the Constitutional Court held that Liechtenstein law did not provide for the reopening of proceedings in such circumstances. Further, while it expressly accepted the European Court’s finding of a violation, it considered that that finding had constituted sufficient redress in the circumstances of the case.

In a fresh application to the European Court, the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ decision not to reopen the compensation proceedings constituted a continuous violation of their right to a fair trial and of their right of access to court.

Law – Article 6 § 1: In order to determine its competence ratione materiae , the Court had to ascertain whether the applicants’ new application contained relevant new information possibly entailing a fresh violation of Article 6, or whether it concerned only the execution of the initial application without raising any relevant new facts. The Court distinguished the present case from Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz ( VgT ) v. Switzerland (no. 2) * on two counts. Firstly, whereas the Swiss Federal Court in the latter case had mainly relied on new grounds in deciding to dismiss a request to reopen the domestic proceedings, the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court in the applicants’ case had dismissed a like request essentially because municipal law did not provide for the reopening of domestic proceedings following a finding by the European Court of a violation. The Constitutional Court had, moreover, expressly acknowledged the violation. Accordingly, its refusal to reopen the proceedings had not been based on relevant new grounds capable of giving rise to a fresh violation. As to the second distinguishing feature between the two cases, the Court noted that, unlike the position in Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz ( VgT ) (no. 2) , the Committee of Ministers in the applicants’ case had not, when deciding to end its supervision of the execution of the judgment, been under the misapprehension that the applicants would be able to request the reopening of the domestic proceedings. While these considerations were not intended to detract from the importance of ensuring that domestic procedures were in place which allowed a case to be revisited in the light of a finding that Article 6 had been violated, the present application had to be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).

* Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz ( VgT ) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, 30 June 2009, Information Note no. 120.

© 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