Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770228-745076
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 01:17:06+00:00
Document Index: 228335068

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 27", '§ 2']

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7450/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-02-28;7450.76 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7450/7 6 X . v/BELGIU M X . c/ BELGIQU E DECISION of 28 February 1977 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 28 fÃ©vrier 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention : This provision does not, as such, govern the admissibility and probative value of evidence . lt is not proof of partiality of a judge that, in conformity with domestic law, he does not accepr a document produced by a party, on the ground that his possession of it is unlawful .
Artic% 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Cette disposition ne rÃ©git pas, comme telles, l'admissibilitÃ© et la force probante des moyens de preuve . Ne fait pas preuve de partialitÃ© le juge qui, conformÃ©ment Ã un principe du droit interne, relette un document produit par une partie, au motif que sa possession est illicite .
(English : see p . 109 1
Le requÃ©rant et sa soeur sont propriÃ©taires indivis d'une maison de famille dont leur mÃ©re leur a fait don . La soeur du requÃ©rant, nÃ©e avant le mariage de la mÃ©re, avait Ã©tÃ© reconnue et lÃ©gitimÃ©e par le mari de celle-ci au moment du mariage, en 1913 . Dans la maison de famille et du vivant de sa mÃ©re, le requÃ©rant a dÃ©couvert des lettres adressÃ©es Ã celle-ci par un certain A ., qui dÃ©clarait se considÃ©rer comme le pÃ¨re de la jeune fille . Il apparaÃ®t d'ailleurs qu'Ã© l'Ã©poque, A . fur condamnÃ© Ã payer 9/a mÃ©re des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts pour rupture de fianÃ§ailles . AprÃ©s le dÃ©cÃ©s de sa mÃ¨re, le requÃ©rant a intentÃ© une action en vue de faire annuler la reconnaissance et la lÃ©gitimation de sa soeur par mariage . Il a produit notamment les lettres de A . mais celles-ci ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©cartÃ©es du dossier par le tribunal, Ã raison de leur caractÃ©re confidentiel et de leur appropriation illicite par le requÃ©rant . // a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©boutÃ© en premiÃ©re instance (1971) et en appel (1973) . Son pourvoi en cassation a Ã©tÃ© reietÃ© (1975) .
EN DROIT lExtrait l Le requÃ©rant se plaint qu'en Ã©cartant des dÃ©bats judiciaires des lettres essentielles Ã la manifestation de la vÃ©ritÃ©, les juges ont fait preuve de partialitÃ© et ont mÃ©connu son droit Ã un procÃ©s Ã©quitable, garanti par l'article 6, Â§ 1, de la Convention . Cette disposition implique que toute partie doit pouvoir faire valoir ses arguments dans des conditions qui ne soient pas nettement dÃ©savantageuses par rapport Ã la partie adverse (cf . DÃ©c . Comm . RequÃªte NÂ° 2804/66, c/RÃ©publlque FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, Rec . 27, p . 61, 73 . Elle ne rÃ©glemente pas la matiÃ¨re des preuves en tant que telle et notamment leur admissibilitÃ© et leur force probante, questions relevant essentiellement du droit interne . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le grief de partialitÃ© se fonde uniquement sur l'interprÃ©tation donnÃ©e par les tribunaux dans un cas particulier Ã des dispositions ou principes de droit interne, la Commission ne peut examiner de prÃ©tendues erreurs que dans la mesure oÃ¹ celles-ci auraient entrainÃ© une violation de la Convention (cf . DÃ©c . Comm . sur RequÃ¨te NÂ° 4607/70, c/Royaume-Uni, Rec . 37, p . 146, 154) . En l'espÃ©ce, les juges ont appliquÃ© un principe gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnu en droit belge, selon lequel la production en justice par un tiers d'une lettre Ã caractÃ¨re confidentiel prÃ©suppose une possession licite de la lettre par ce tiers (cf . entre autres, Le systÃ¨me jurisprudentiel du droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e - JT 1973, NÂ° 4981) . Le caractÃ¨re illicite de cette possession, dans le chef du requÃ©rant, est une apprÃ©ciation de fait qui Ã©chappe au contrÃ´le de la Commission . Au surplus, la Commission observe que le requÃ©rant critique en fait la conclusion des juges selon laquelle la preuve de rapports sexuels, voire la certitude dans le chef d'un amant d'Ã©tre le pÃ¨re de l'enfant dont l'Ã©tat est contestÃ©, ne suffisent pas pour exclure que l'auteur de la reconnaissance ait nÃ©anmoins pu Ã©tre le pÃ©re de l'enfant . Une telle apprÃ©ciation juridique Ã©chappe, en elle-mÃ©me, au contrÃ´le de la Commission . En consÃ©quence, si les rÃ©gles relatives Ã l'admissibilitÃ© des preuves ont rendu plus ardue la position du requÃ©rant, rien ne permet de penser que celui-ci, qui Ã©tait assistÃ© de plusieurs avocats et dont les arguments et moyens ont Ã©tÃ© rencontrÃ©s par les cours et tribunaux, n'a pas eu droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable au sens de l'article 6, Â§ 1, de la Convention . II s'ensuit que la requÃªte est, Ã cet Ã©gard, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention .
Summary of the relevant facts The applicant and his sister are coproprietors indivis of a family house, which they received from their mother as a gift . The applicant's sister born before his mother's marriage, had been recognised and legitimated by her husband on the occasion of their marriage in 7973 .
In the house, the applicant had found, while his mother was still alive, letters addressed to her by a certain A ., who declared that he considered himself as the girl's father. Moreover, it appearÃ©d that at the time A . was ordered to pay damages to the mother for breach of promise to marry . After his mother's death, the applicant instituted proceedings for annulment of the recognition and legitimation of the sister. In particular, he produced letters of A ., but the Court ordered them to be taken out of the case file, in view of their confidential character and their unlawful appropriation by the applicant . His claim was rejected in first instance (1971) and on appeal (1973) . His plea of nullity also failed (1975 ) .
(TRANSLATION) THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant complains that by eliminating from the judicial debates letters which were essential for the establishment of the truth, the judges have demonstrated partiality and have disregarded his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention . This provision implies that everyone who is a party to such proceedings shall have a reasonable oppÃ´rtunity of presenting his case to the Court under conditions which do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-Ã -vis his opponent (cf . decision on the admissibility of application No . 2804/66 v/Fed . Rep . of Germany, Coll . 27, p . 61, 73) . It does not, however, lay down rules as to the evidence, as such, and in particular as to its admissibility and probative value, these questions being essentially dependent on domestic legislation . In sofar as the complaintof partiality is based merely on the interpretation given by the courts in a particular case to provisions or principles of domestic law, the Commission can only consider alleged errors where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms limitatively listed in the Convention Icf . decision on the admissibility of application No . 4607/70 v ./United Kingdom, Coll . 37, p . 146, 154) . In the present case, the judges have applied a principle of law generally accepted in Belgium, according to which the submission in judicial proceedings by a third party of a letter of confidential character requires lawful possession of the letter by the third party Icf . inter alia Â« Le systÃ©me jurisprudentiel du droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e Â» - JT 1973, NÂ° 4981) . The finding that the applicant's possession was of an unlawful character, is a finding of facts which is not subject to the control of the Commission . What is more, the Commission notes that the applicant in reality criticises the conclusion of the judges according to which the proof of sexual relations, or even certainty on the part of a lover that he is the father of a child whose legal position is contested, are not sufficient to exclude that the author o f
the recognition is nevertheless the child's father . Such a legal appfeciation is not as such subject to control by the Commission . It follows that, even accepting that the rules on admissibility of evidence have made his position more difficult, there is no reason to believe that the applicant, who was assisted by several lawyers and whose arguments and evidence have been dealt with by the courts and tribunals, did not have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention . It follows that the application, in this respect, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention .
- 111 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 28/02/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page