Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

Valová, Slezák and Slezák v. Slovakia

Doc ref: 44925/98 • ECHR ID: 002-4316

Document date: June 1, 2004

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

Valová, Slezák and Slezák v. Slovakia

Doc ref: 44925/98 • ECHR ID: 002-4316

Document date: June 1, 2004

Cited paragraphs only

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65

June 2004

Valová, Slezák and Slezák v. Slovakia - 44925/98

Judgment 1.6.2004 [Section IV]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Public hearing

Oral hearing

Lack of oral hearing in administrative proceedings: no violation

Extract: “According to the Court’s established case-law, in proceedings before a court of first and only instance the right to a “public he aring” in the sense of Article 6 § 1 entails an entitlement to an oral hearing unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify dispensing with such a hearing. In particular, an oral hearing may not be required under Article 6 § 1, inter alia , wher e a tribunal is only called upon to decide on questions of law of no particular complexity.

The Court notes that in its judgment … the Nitra Regional Court expressly stated that the only point in question was a question of law: it was called upon to decide whether the applicants had standing … to have the property restored. From this point of view the crucial issue was whether or not the private company of which the applicants’ predecessors had been members and from which the land in question had been taken away had been a legal person. That issue was determined in the judgment of the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court … delivered in the context of proceedings which concerned a different restitution claim of the applicants. Prior to the del ivery of that judgment the Regional Court held an oral hearing in the course of which the applicants were free to submit their arguments. In these circumstances, the Court considers that another public hearing was not indispensable under Article 6 § 1 of t he Convention when deciding on the point at issue.

The Court does not find on the evidence before it that the applicants’ submissions to the Nitra Regional Court were capable of raising any issues of fact or of law pertaining to their restitution claim whi ch were of such a nature as to require an oral hearing for their disposition. At the relevant time Section 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure permitted courts to deliver a judgment without prior oral hearing in similar cases.”

© 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

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 400211 • Paragraphs parsed: 44892118 • Citations processed 3448707