 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Thus, in APIS v Slovakia
where the complaint related to the treatment of an interim
injunction, Art 6(1) was held to be inapplicable, the E Ct HR stating :-
"The Court notes that the alleged violation occurred in the course of interlocutory
proceedings relating to an interim injunction. The decision of the Supreme Court of
30 May 1997 was only an interim order and it did not involve a decision on the merits of the
case which was at that time dealt with by the Bratislava City Court. In these circumstances,
the Court finds that the interlocutory proceedings complained of did not involve a
‘determination' of the applicant company's civil rights or obligations within the meaning of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention."
On the other hand, apart from trials on liability, proceedings involving determination
of a preliminary point on liability,
quantum
and costs
have all been held to be
decisive of rights and obligations and to engage the protections.
The comparable words of BOR 10
are not identical to the Art 6(1) equivalent. BOR
10 operates in respect of a "determination of [a person's] rights and obligations in a
suit at law" while Art 6(1) speaks of a "determination of his civil rights and
obligations". However, it seems clear that the effect of the two provisions is the same
in the present context and that the scope of BOR 10 is also limited in the manner
mentioned above.
Notes
Application 39754/98 (Admissibility decision).
Obermeier v Austria (1990) 13 EHRR 290 at §66-67.
Silva Pontes v Portugal (1994) 18 EHRR 156 at §30-36.
Robins v United Kingdom (1997) 26 EHRR 527 at §28-29.
See L&P, §4.6.7.
"In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at
law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law."
|
 |
|