Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19810715-831578
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 15:38:33+00:00
Document Index: 310530981

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 19", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6"]

X. c. IRLANDE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche X. c. IRLANDE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8315/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-07-15;8315.78 Analyses : (Art. 11) LIBERTE DE REUNION ET D'ASSOCIATION, (Art. 6-1) ACCES A UN TRIBUNAL, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVIL, (Art. 6-1) JUGEMENT PUBLIC, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES PUBLIC, (Art. 6-1) TRIBUNAL IMPARTIALParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : IRLANDETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8315/79 X . v/IRELAN D X . c/IRLAND E DECISION of 15 July 1981 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 15 juillet 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph I or the Convention : a) Paternity or affiliation proceedings concern the determirration of civil rights and obligations. b) The person whose legal representative has decided to dispense with a transcript of the trial cannot complain to the Cotnmission of the unavailability of the tria l transcript. c) The trial is not unfair on the sole ground that the judge has relied on declarations made under oath by an expert who declares having proceeded to blood group tests, even ij the laboratory reports are not made available at the trial .
Arlicle 26 of the Conventlon : Have domestic remedies been exhausted ijthe leave to appea l has been sought out ojtime but where the judge has nevertheless considered the merits of the appeal? ( Question not pursued )
A rt icle 6, peragrephe 1, de la Convenllon : a) Portent sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil les actions ett paternitÃ© ou en prestation d'aliments par le pÃ¨re putatif.
b) Le plaideur dont le reprÃ©sentant en justice a renoncÃ© Ã !a tenue d'un cornpte rendu stÃ©nographique de l'audience ne peut ensuite se plaindre Ã la Commission de l'absence d'un tel compte rendu . c) Le procÃ¨s n'est pas inÃ©quitable du seul fait que le juge s'est fondÃ© sur les dÃ©clarations faites sous serment par un expert aJfirmant avoir procÃ©dÃ© Ã un examen des groupes sanguins, alors mÃ©me que les rapports d'analyse ne sont pas produits au procÃ¨s .
Artlcle 26 de la Convention : Y a-t-il Ã©puisement des voies de recours lorsque le recours a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© irrecevable comme tardif mals que le juge a nÃ©anmoins abordÃ© l'examen du fond du litige? ( Question non rÃ©solue) .
Summary of the relevent facts
(francais : voir p . 206)
The applicant' sought an affliation order from the High Court against the father of her illegitimate child with a view to its maintenance. Representatives of both Parties agreed that the proceedings would be conducted without the assistance of a note taker . The applicant offered evidence on a sesual relationship between her and the defendant and a medical expert opinion on a morphological resemblance between the defendant's eyes and the child's . From his side, the defendant requested the hearing of a medical expert who declared that the blood group tests which he had carried out revealed that the defendant could not possibly have been the father of the child. The applicant's claim was then dismissed . The applicant, who at this point changed solicitor, decided to commence proceedings before the Supreme Court and requested leave to appeal because she was two days out of time. This request was turned down on the grounds that the appeal had no chance of success. Having discharged her legal advisers, the applicant applied in person for reinstatement of her nrotion for extension of time within which to appeal claiming in particular that the medical certificate on the blood analysis had not been ntade available to the first instance judge .
THE LAW (Extract ) 1 . The applicant first complains that she did not receive a fair hearing before the High Court in respect of the affiliation order proceedings . In this regard she complains that the medical evidence which, in the view of the court, was decisive of the issue of paternity, was not accompanied by documentary evidence such as blood certificates or laboratory reports . She also complains that the proceedings were conducted without the assistance of a note taker
. â¢ Before the Commission the applicant was representedby Mr Patrick McCartan . Solicitor, Mr Kader Asmal, Senior Lecturer in Law, Trinity College, and Mr Edward Walsh, Barri ster-at-Law, all three from Dublin . -204-
2 . Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention states that "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent tribunal established by law" . The Commission is of the opinion that paternity or affiliation proceedings involve the determination of civil rights within the sense of this provision . However, the Commission recalls, with regard to the finding of the High Court on . . . November 1977 of which the applicant complains, that in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention . In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention . The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant jurisprudence (see e .g . decisions on the admissibility of applications No . 458/59, Yearbook 3, pp . 222, 236 and No . 1140/61, Collection of Decisions 8, pp . 57, 62) . 3 . However, the applicant has alleged that in certain respects the hearing of her case was "unfair" . The Commission recalls that the applicant sought leave to . appeal to the Supreme Court out of time . In such circumstances the Commission has usually held that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 of the Convention has not been satisfied (see, e .g . Application No . 3897/68, 35 Collection of Decisions . p . 75) . In the present case, the applicant has submitted that although the proceedings were an application for leave to appeal out of time, the Supreme Court in reality considered the merits of the appeal and thus the applicant had exhausted all available domestic remedies .
4 . The Commission considers that it is not necessary in the present case to decide whether the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies since she has not shown that the proceedings before the High Court were unfair within the meaning of Article 6 . paragraph 1 . It is of the opinion that the absence of a note taker cannot in itself render the proceedings at first instance "unfair" . However, in the present case it is not open to the applicant to rely on such an argument since the decision to dispense with a note taker was one freely agreed to by the parties' legal representatives and must thus be imputed to the applicant . Furthermore, the Commission does not consider that the absence of documentary evidence such as blood certificates or laboratory reports raises an issue under Article 6, paragraph I in the present case . The Commission observes in this regard, from the note of the proceedings prepared by the trial judge, that medical evidence concerning blood groups which excluded the possibility of the defendant being the father of the applicant's child was provided by two doctors who had analysed separately blood samples obtained from the parties and the child . It is clear from the judge's note that thi s
testimony was based on the written laboratory reports of their findings which had previously been made known to parties . S . In these circumstances, even though documentary evidence as such may not have been produced in court, there can be no doubt that there existed substantial evidence, which was open to challenge by counsel for the applicant, on which the Court could arrive at its decision as to paternity . 6 . The applicant further complains of the proceedings before the Supreme Court on . . . December 1977 and . . . January 1978 . In this respect the question arises as to whether these proceedings can be characterised as "unfair" because of the unavailability of a transcript of the proceedings at flrst instance or the lack of the judge' note of the proceedings .
7 . While the Commission recalls that in principle Article 6 . paragraph 1 is applicable to appeal proceedings (see e .g . Eur . Court . H .R ., Delcourt Case . Judgment of 17 January 1970) a question could arise as to its applicability to proceedings concerning an extension of time within which to bring an appeal or a motion to reinstate such an applicalion . However, the Commission considers that this issue may be left open in the present case since the requirements of Article 6, paragraph I appear to have been satisfied . The Commission is of the opinion that for such proceedings (i .e . proceedings seeking leave to appeal out of time) to be "fair" under the Convention, it is not necessary that the review court have before it a transcript or a copy of the judge's note . 8 . In the present case the Commission notes that in the motion for leave to appeal out of time which was heard on . . . December 1977 the applicant was represented by counsel who would have had an opportunity, in stating to the court the applicant's case for an extension of time, to refer to the proceedings in the High Court and to her grounds of appeal including grounds relating to the medical evidence presented in that court . Finally, the applicant has not shown that the principle of "equality of arms" was not respected in either of her application to the Supreme Court .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinents La requÃ©rante 0 a iritroduit devant [a High Court contre l'homme qu'e!!e estirne Ã©tre le pÃ¨re de son enfant illÃ©gitime une action en prestation d'a(iments en faveur de cet enfant . â¢ Devant la Commission, la requÃ©rante Ã©tait repn9sentÃ©e par M . Pat rick McCartan , Solicitor . M . Kader Asmal, ChargÃ© de cours Ã Trinity College . et M . Edward Walsh, . . . Barrister-al-taw, tous trois Ã Dublin . ,
Les reprÃ©sentants des deux parties tombÃ¨rent d'accord pour renoncer Ã l'Ã©tablissement d'un compte rendu littÃ©ral de l'audience . La requÃ©rante offrit en preuve des relations sexuelles avec le dÃ©fendeur et l'avis d'un spÃ©cialiste sur une ressemblance tnorphologique de !'aeil entre le dÃ©fendeur et l'enfant . De son c8tÃ©, le dÃ©fendeur fit entendre un expert qui dÃ©clara que l'examen des groupes sanguins auquel il avait procÃ©dÃ© pennettait d'exclure la patentitÃ© du dÃ©fendeur. La requÃ©rante fut dÃ©boutÃ©e. Avant changÃ© de solicitor, la requÃ©rante dÃ©cida de recourir Ã la Cour suprÃªme et demanda Ã cette juridiction de recevoir son recours hors dÃ©lai, celui-ci Ã©tant Ã©chu depuis deux jours . Cette demande fu[ rejetÃ©e au tnotif que le recours ne prÃ©sentait aucune chance de succÃ¨s . Agissant sans l'assistance d'un solicitor, la requÃ©rante essaya une nouvelle fois de recourir hors dÃ©lai, se plaignant notamment que les rapports d'analvse hÃ©matologique n'avaient pas Ã©tÃ© pmduits devant le premier juge. Elle fut encore une fois dÃ©boutÃ©e .
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extrait ) 1 . La requÃ©rante se plaint en premier lieu de n'avoir pas bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable devant la High Court Ã propos d'une procÃ©dure d'assignation Ã pÃ¨re putatif . Elle se plaint Ã cet Ã©gard que les tÃ©moignages des mÃ©decins qui ont Ã©tÃ© aux yeux des juges dÃ©cisifs pour la question de paternitÃ©, n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© accompagnÃ©s de preuves documentaires telles que certificats de groupe sanguin ou rapports de laboratoire . Elle se plaint Ã©galement que les procÃ©dures ont Ã©tÃ© menÃ©es sans l'assistance d'un rÃ©dacteur de compte rendu littÃ©ral . L'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention stipule que . toute personn e .2 a droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue Ã©quitablement, publiquementet dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial, Ã©tabli par la loi, qui dÃ©cidera, soit des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de .caractÃ¨re civil, soit du bien-fondÃ© de toute accusation en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre elle â¢ . La Commission estime que la procÃ©dure de recherche de paternitÃ© ou d'assignation Ã pÃ¨re putatif emporte dÃ©termination de droits de caractÃ¨re civil, au sens de cette disposition . Elle rappelle, cependant, quant Ã la dÃ©cision de la High Court en date du . . . novembre 1977, dont se plaint la requÃ©rante, qu'elle a pour seule tÃ¢che, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 19 de la Convention ,
d'assurer le respect des engagements rÃ©sultant de la Convention pour les Parties contractantes . En particulier, elle n'est pas compÃ©tente pour examiner une requÃªte relative Ã des erreurs de fait ou de droit prÃ©tendument commises par une juridiction interne, sauf si et dans la mesure oÃ¹ ces erreurs lui semblent susceptibles d'avoir entrainÃ© une atteinte aux droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention . La Commission se rÃ©fÃ¨re sur ce point Ã sa jurisprudence constante (cf . par exemple les dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes Nos 458/59 . Annuaire 3, pp . 223, 233 et 1140/61, Recueil de dÃ©cisions 8, pp . 57, 62) . 3 . Cependant, la requÃ©rante prÃ©tend qu'Ã certains Ã©gards sa cause a Ã©tÃ© entendue de maniÃ¨re - inÃ©quitableâ¢ . La Commission rappelle que l'intÃ©ressÃ©e a demandÃ© Ã Ã©tre autorisÃ©e Ã se pourvoir tardivement devant la Cour suprÃªme . En pareil cas, la Commission dÃ©clare gÃ©nÃ©ralement que la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes posÃ©e Ã l'article 26 de la Convention n'a pas Ã©tÃ© remplie (voir par exemple Requ@te NÂ° 3897/68, Recueil de dÃ©cisions 35, p . 75) . En l'espÃ¨ce, la requÃ©rante a fait valoir que bien que sa demande tendit Ã Ãªtre autorisÃ©e Ã se pourvoir tardivement, la Cour suprÃªme a en rÃ©alitÃ© examinÃ© le bien-fondÃ© du recours, si bien que la requÃ©rante a Ã©puisÃ© toutes les voies de recours internes Ã sa disposition . 4 . La Commission estime pouvoir laisser indÃ©cise la question de savoir si la requÃ©rante a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes car elle n'a pas rendu vraisemblable que la procÃ©dure devant la High Court avait Ã©tÃ© inÃ©quitable, au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . La Commission est d'avis que l'absence de compte rendu littÃ©ral ne saurait en soi entacher d'iniquitÃ© la procÃ©dure de premiÃ¨re instance . Du reste, la requÃ©rante est mal venue d'invoquer cet argument puisque la dÃ©cision de se passer de compte rendu a Ã©tÃ© prise librement et d'un commun accord entre les avocats des parties et qu'elle peut donc Ãªtre imputÃ©e Ã la requÃ©rante elle-mÃ©me . En outre, selon la Commission, l'absence de preuves documentaires telles que certificats de groupe sanguin ou rapports de laboratoire, ne pose pas en l'espÃ¨ce un problÃ¨me au regard de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . La Commission remarque Ã cet Ã©gard que, selon la note Ã©tablie sur l'affaire par le juge de premiÃ¨re instance, les tÃ©moignages concernant les groupes sanguins, qui excluaient la possibilitÃ© que le dÃ©fendeur fÃ»t le pÃ¨re de l'enfant de la requÃ©rante, ont Ã©tÃ© fournis par deux mÃ©decins ayant analysÃ© sÃ©parÃ©ment les prÃ©lÃ¨vements sanguins opÃ©rÃ©s sur les personnes parties au procÃ¨s et sur t'enfant . Il ressort clairement de la note du juge que ces tÃ©moignages se fondaient sur les rapports Ã©crits des analyses de laboratoire, dont les parties avaient eu connaissance . 5 . Dans ces conditions, et alors mÃªme que les documents n'auraient pas Ã©tÃ© produits devant le tribunal, J ne fait aucun doute qu'il existait pour fonder la dÃ©cision du juge en matiÃ¨re de paternitÃ©, des preuves solides, que l'avocat de la requÃ©rante avait la facultÃ© de contester . -208-
6 . La requÃ©rante se plaint en outre de la procÃ©dure qui s'est dÃ©roulÃ©e devant la Cour suprÃªme le . . . dÃ©cembre 1977 et le . . . janvier 1978 . La question se pose Ã cet Ã©gard de savoir si cette procÃ©dure peut Ãªtre qualifiÃ©e d'inÃ©quitable du fait qu'il n'existait pas de compte rendu littÃ©ral du procÃ¨s ou de l'absence de notes du juge sur le procÃ¨s . 7 . Tout en rappelant qu'en principe l'article 6, paragraphe 1 est applicable Ã une procÃ©dure de recours (voir par exemple Cour eur. DH, Affaire Delcourt, arrÃªt du 17 janvier 1970) . la Commission estime qu'un problÃ¨me peut se poser quant Ã l'applicabilitÃ© de cette disposition Ã une procÃ©dure relative Ã une prorogation du dÃ©lai d'appel ou Ã une demande de relevÃ© de forclusion . Toutefois, la Commission estime qu'elle peut en l'espÃ¨ce ne pas trancher cette question puisque les conditions de l'anicle 6, paragraphe 1 semblent avoir Ã©tÃ© remplies . A son avis, pour qu'une telle procÃ©dure (tendant Ã obtenir l'autorisation d'interjeter appel hors dÃ©lai) soit .Ã©quitable . au regard de la Convention, il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire que la juridiction d'appel dispose d'un comple rendu du procÃ¨s ou d'une copie des notes du juge . 8 . La Commission relÃ¨ve en l'espÃ¨ce que, dans la demande de relevÃ© de forclusion, qui a Ã©tÃ© entendue le . . . dÃ©cembre 1977, la requÃ©rante Ã©tait reprÃ©sentÃ©e par un avocat qui aurait pu, en exposant Ã la cour les arguments de sa cliente pour faire proroger le dÃ©lai d'appel, se rÃ©fÃ©rer Ã la procÃ©dure devant la High Court et dÃ©velopper des moyens de recours, notamment ceux concernant les tÃ©moignages mÃ©dicaux prÃ©sentÃ©s devant cette juridiction . Enfin, la requÃ©rante n'a pas montrÃ© que le principe de .1'Ã©galitÃ© des armes . n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© respectÃ© dans l'une ou l'autrc dc ses requÃ©tes Ã la Cour suprÃ¨nie .
-209-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 15/07/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page