Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19811209-909980
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 06:15:18+00:00
Document Index: 185082462

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27"]

X. et Y. c. AUTRICHE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche X. et Y. c. AUTRICHE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9099/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-12-09;9099.80 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1) VOIES LEGALES, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-2) INFORMATION DANS LE PLUS COURT DELAI, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : X. et Y.Défendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9099/80 X . and Y . v/AUSTRI A X . et Y . c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 9 December 1981 on the admissibility of the applicatio n DECISION du 9 dÃ©cembre 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Artlcle 6, paragraph I of the Convention : In civil proceedings the language used is a relevant factor for a fair hearing . Nevert heless a defendant faced with proceedings brought in a foreign language must show that he took reasonable steps to seek a tranalation promptly .
Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la ConrenUon : En matiÃ¨re civile . la langue de la procÃ©dure n'est pas un Ã©lÃ©ment Ã©tranger a la notion de procÃ¨s Ã©quitable. Toutefois. en prÃ©sence d'une notification faite en langue Ã© trangÃ¨re, le plaideur doit faire preuve de diligence en usant Ã temps des possibilitÃ©s d'obtenir une traduction .
((rancais : voir p . 211 )
Both applicants are of Dutch nationality. The mother tongue of one of them is Dutch, the other one's is Chinese. Both applicants' knowledge of German is ve ry limited. Both applicants are shareholders in a Dutch firm which acquired in 1977 a production license from an Austrian ftrm . The contract, drawn up in German, stipulated that the applicants were liable for the license fees. As the applicant's firm went bankrupt, they were summoned before Austrian courts by four different court actions to pay the fees . Summonses were se rved on the applicants in the Netherlands in the German language. In three cases the receipt was acknowledged on forms in the German language, in one case in Dutch. The applicants submit that they did not understand the
-2p9-
contents of the summonses and that they had forwarded them to the company's manager, who had declared that he would take the appropriate actio n As they failed to appear at the trial, default orders were made against the applicants in Austria . The judgments were also served on them in German in 1979 together with notices or appeal procedure. One of these, served in the beginning of June 1979, was accompanied by an explanation notice in the Dutch language. Allegedly only as a result of this document did the applicants understand what the proceedings were about . The applicants instructed a lawyer in Austria and th ro ugh him requested to be heard and lodged an appeal against the convention . This request as we!( as the appeal were rejected . The Austrian cou rts held that the summons had been lawful and that under the The Hague Convention on civil proceedings the applicants could have refused service which were not accompanied by a Dutch translation .
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicants' principal complaint is that they were summoned to appear before an Austrian court in a language which they did not understand, a fact which led to the pronouncement of a judgment in default against them . They consider that this amounts to a violation of the principles of fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the Convention . The Commission observes that the right to be informed of the nature and cause of a civil action in a language which the defendant understands is not expressly guaranteed in the Convention . A similar guarantee is only provided for in criminal cases by virtue of Article 6 (3) (a) . This does' not mean, however, that the language of court proceedings and of individual acts relating to them can under no circumstances be relevant in the context of the application of Article 6(1) to civil cases . Whether or not the failure to translate certain documents is unfair must, however, be determined in each individual case having regard to the particular circumstances . Now it appears from the facts of the present case that the applicants had themselves concluded a contract with an Austrian firm which was drawn up in German . This contract contained inter alia a clause providing for their personal liability, and it was further agreed that jurisdiction for disputes arising in connection with the contract would lie with the Austrian courts . Already entering into such an agreement without a sufficient knowledge of German, the applicants incurred a considerable risk by their own free decision . Although they may not at once have understood the court actions when they were served upon them, it nevertheless results from the file that at least one of these actions was handed to them together with a receipt form in th e
Dutch language in which it was expressly stated that the case was between the Austrian firm and each of the applicants ("in the zaak . . . tegen hemzelf') . Both applicants signed this notice on . . . March 1979 . The applicants' contention that the true nature of the above documents did not come to their knowledge before . . . June 1979 has therefore no basis in the facts . They could have known the situation even before the pronouncement of the first judgment in default on . . . March 1979 . This judgment itself was again served on the applicants with a receipt form in Dutch which the first applicant signed, but the second applicant refused to sign on some date in April 1979 . The competent judicial officer in Groningen reported to the Regional Court of Innsbruck on . . . April 1979 that both applicants had declared that they were not prepared to accept any letters from foreign courts in the future . Apart from this it is at least surprising that the applicants should not have made any inquiries into the nature of the documents received by them, given the fact that they were handed to them personally by court officials, and not sent through the mail . It is also noteworthy that they forwarded these documents to the manager of their company who, according to their own submissions, had caused the bankruptcy of the firm by his fraudulent behaviour, and that they did not at least ask this manager (whom they were supposed to supervise) as to the contents of the papers and his intentions regarding them . The Commission considers that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, it was not required in this case to translate the above documents into Dutch language from the outset . If the applicants had acted with due care they could have found out in time what these documents were about and also that they had a possibility under the Hague Convention of requesting a translation . It follows that there is no appearance of a violation of Article 6(1) and the applicants' complaint in this respect must accordingly be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
RÃ©aumÃ© des falts perllnent s Les deux requÃ©rants sont de nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise. L'un est de langue maternelle nÃ©erlandaise . l'autre de langue maternelle chinoise. Tous deux ont une trÃ¨s jaible connaissance de l'allemand. Une entreprise nÃ©erlandaise dont les deux requÃ©rants sont actionnaires a acquis en 1977 d'une firme autrichienne une licence de fabrication . Le contrat, rÃ©digÃ© en allemand, stipulait que les deux requÃ©rants garantissaient le paiement des royalties . L'entreprise des requÃ©rants ayant fait jaillite, ceux-ci furent assignÃ©s en paiement devant les tribunaux autrichiens en quatre actions distinctes .
-21t-
Les assignations furent notifrÃ©es aux requÃ©rants aux Pays-Bas en langue allemandÃ© . Dans trois cas la formule d'accusÃ© de rÃ©ception Ã©tait en allemand, dans un cas en nÃ©erlandais . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent n'avair pas compris la teneur des assignations et avoir remis celles-ci au directeur de l'entreprise . qui dÃ©clara se charger defaire le nÃ©cessaire . N'ayant pas comparu, les requÃ©rants furent condamnÃ©s en Autriche par dÃ©faut. Les jugements leur furent notifiÃ©s de mÃªme . en allemand en 1979, avec indication des voies de recours . L'un d'entre eux. notifiÃ© au dÃ©but de juin 1 979, Ã©tait accompagnÃ© d'une notice explicative en nÃ©erlandais . C'est par elle que les requÃ©rants auraient appris de quoi il en retournait . , -Les requÃ©rants constituÃ¨rent avocat en Autriche et, par son intermÃ©diaire, demandÃ¨rent une procÃ©dure contradictoire et intÃ©rjetÃ¨rent appel du jugement rendu.Cette demande et cet appel furent rejetÃ©s . Les tribunaux autrichienr estimÃ¨rent en effet que les assignations avaient Ã©tÃ© rÃ©guliÃ¨res et qu'aux termes de la Convention de La Haye sur la procÃ©dure civile les requÃ©rants auraient pu refuser les notifications non accompagnÃ©es d'une traduction en nÃ©erlandais. (TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extrait e ) Le principal grief des requÃ©rants est qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© citÃ©s Ã comparaitr devant un tribunal autrichien dans une langue qu'ils ne comprenaient pas, ce qui a entraÃ®nÃ© le prononcÃ© contre eux d'un jugement par dÃ©faut . Il en rÃ©sulte, Ã leurs yeux, une violation des-principes du procÃ¨s Ã©quitable, tels que les ' garantit l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention . La Commission observe que la Convention ne garantit pas expressÃ©ment le droit d'Ãªtre informÃ©, dans une langue que le dÃ©fendeur comprend, de la nature et de la raison d'une action civile . Pareille garantie n'est prÃ©vue par l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (a), qu'en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale . Ceci ne signifie pas cependant que la langue du procÃ¨s et des actes de procÃ©dure y affÃ©rents ne puissent jamais entrer en ligne de compte dans le contexte de l'application de l'article 6, paragraphe I . Ã des affaires civiles . Pour savoir si le fait de n'avoir pas traduit certains documents est inÃ©quitable, il faut cependant examiner chaque cas individuellement, eu Ã©gard aux circonstances en l'espÃ©ce . Or, il ressort des faits de la cause que les requÃ©rants avaient eux-mÃ©mes conclu avec une firme autrichienne un contrat rÃ©digÃ© en allemand . Ce contrat comportait notamment une clause mettant en jeu leur responsabilitÃ© personnelle et contenait une Ã©lection de for en faveur des tribunaux autrichiens . Or, dÃ©jÃ en signant cet accord sans connaÃ®tre l'allemand, les requÃ©rants ont assumÃ© de leur propre grÃ© un risque considÃ©rable . Il se peut qu'au dÃ©but ils n'aient pas compris le sens des assignations qui leur Ã©taient notifiÃ©es . Cependant, il ressort du dossier qu'au moins l'un e - 712 -
de celles-ci leur a Ã©tÃ© remise avec une forntule d'accusÃ© de rÃ©ception rÃ©digÃ©e en nÃ©erlandais et prÃ©cisant expressÃ©ment que l'affaire opposait la firme autrichienne Ã chacun des requÃ©rants (in de zaak . . . tegen hemze(J) . L'un et l'autre requÃ©rants ont signÃ© cette formule le . . . mars 1979 . Aussi l'argument selon lequel ils n'auraient Ã©tÃ© informÃ©s de la vÃ©ritable nature des documents prÃ©citÃ©s que le . . . juin 1979 manque-t-il en fait . Les requÃ©rants auraient pu connaitre la situation avant mÃªme le prononcÃ© du premier jugement par dÃ©faut le . . . ntars 1979 . Ce jugement leur a Ã©tÃ© lui-mÃªme stgnitiÃ©, accompagnÃ© d'une formule d'accusÃ© de rÃ©ception rÃ©digÃ©e en nÃ©erlandais, formule que le premier requÃ©rant a signÃ©e mais que le second a refusÃ© de signer en avril 1979 . Le magistrat compÃ©tent de Groningue signala au tribunal rÃ©gional d'Innsbruck le . . . avril 1979 que les deux requÃ©rants avaient dÃ©clarÃ© qu'Ã l'avenir ils n'accepteraient plus aucune lettre de tribunaux Ã©trangers . Ceci mis Ã part, il est pour le ntoins surprenant que les intÃ©ressÃ©s n'aient posÃ© aucune question sur la nature des documents recus, Ã©tant donnÃ© que ces documents leur avaient Ã©tÃ© rentis personnellenient par huissier et non envoyÃ©s par la poste . Il est Ã©galcment remarquable qu'ils aient envoyÃ© ces docuntcnts au directeur de leur sociÃ©tÃ© qui, Ã les entendre, avait provoquÃ© la faillite de l'entreprise par son comportement frauduleux, et Ã qui ils n'ont mÃªme pas demandÃ© (alors que ce directeur Ã©tait censÃ© se trouver sous leur contrÃ´le) ce que contenaient les papiers ni ce qu'iI avait l'intention d'en faire . La Commission estime que, vu les circonstances, il n'Ã©tait pas nÃ©cessaire en l'espÃ¨ce de prÃ©senter d'emblÃ©e une traduction des documents prÃ©citÃ©s en nÃ©erlandais . Si les requÃ©rants avaient manifestÃ© la diligence voulue, ils auraient pu dÃ©couvrir Ã temps le contenu de ces documents et apprendre qu'ils pouvaient Ã©galement en demander la traduction, conformÃ©ment Ã la Convention de La Haye . Il s'ensuit qu'on ne saurait dÃ©celer une violation de l'article 6, paragraphe I, et que le grief des requÃ©rants doit en consÃ©quence Ã©tre rejetÃ© comme manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
- 213 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 09/12/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page