Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19841201-1080784
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 13:22:26+00:00
Document Index: 286841129

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 60", "l'article 6", "l'article 27", "l'article 6", "l'article 6"]

K. c. SUISSE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche K. c. SUISSE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10807/84Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-12-01;10807.84 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVIL, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DE LA VIE FAMILIALEParties : Demandeurs : K.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 10807/84 K . v/SWITZERLAN D K . c/SUISS E DECISION of 4 December 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 4 dÃ©cembre 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ¨te
Article 6, paragraph J or the Convention : 7he provision does not apply to proceedings before constitutional couns. Oral proceedings are not required on an appeal in a civil matter before a supreme coun. Nor, where such a coun may only uphold or dismiss an appeal or remit the case to a lower court, is public pronorarcemem of rhe judgment required . Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Inapplicable Ã une procÃ©dure se dÃ©roulant devant une juridiction constitutionne[le . Devant une juridiction suprÃªme statuant sur un recours en matiÃ¨re civile une procÃ©dure orale n'est pas requise . Lorsque pareille juridicrion ne peut qu'accueillir le recours, le rejeter ou renvoyer la cause, un prononcÃ© public de l'arrÃªt n'est pas non plus requis .
Summary of the relevant racLs ((ran( ais : voir p . 245) The applicant was involved in lengthy proceedings on a contract with a firm with which he had contracted for estension works to his house . Afier the first instance court had ordered the preparation of both an espen opinion and a second opinion, it gave judgment against the applicant and in favour of the building finn in the sum of 9, 000 SF, the costs of 19,400 SF to be divided equally between the parties. On 242
appeal by borh parties, the Court of Appeal confirmed the substance of the judgment but modified the apportionment of costs so that the applicant would bear threequarters and his opponent one-quarter. 77te applicant made a civil law appeal to the Federal Court which, pursuant to Section 60 (2) of rhe Federal Organisation ofJustice Act, gave its decision wirhout a ltearing and without asking for written observations . The cou rt rejected the appeal . 7he applicant also made a public law appeal to the Federal Court in which he claimed that the judgment at first instance had been arbitrary and had violated his righrs to be heard and to equality oftreatment, and that the Court ofAppeal had been arbitrary and had denied him justice . 7he public law appeal was rejected.
THE LAW (Extracts ) I . The applicant complains of the manner in which the Federal Court dealt with his public law appeal and that the court had in respect of this appeal not held a hearing or given its judgment publicly . He also complains that the judges of the Federal Court had neither in these proceedings nor in the proceedings concerning his civil law appeal deliberated and voted in public . He relies on Article 6 para . 1 . However, the Commission recalls its constant case-law that Article 6 para . I is not applicable to proceedings before a Constitutional Court, as such a court is not called upon to determine any private right on the basis of the existing substantive law, be it of a civil or a public character (see No . 8410/78, Dec . 13 .12 .79, D .R . 18 p . 216) . Morover, insofar as the applicant complains that the judges of the Federal Court did not deliberate and vote in public on his civil law appeal, the Commission observes that no such right is enshrined in the Convention . This part of the application must therefore be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 .
b) The applicant also complains that in the proceedings before the Federal Court conceming his civil law appeal the court did not hear the reply of the respondent (R .L .AG and the Court of Appeal) and that the court had not given its judgment publicly .
. As regards the contplaint that the Federal Cou rt did not deem it necessary to hear the appeal respondents, the Commission recalls its case-law concerning civil law appeals according to which the applicant who was able to set out all his pleadings in writing cannot complain in such a situation of any failure to his detriment to respect the equality of arms (see No . 7211/75, Dec . 6 .10 .76 . D .R . 7 p . 104) . In respect of the general issue of oral proceedings on civil law appeals before the Federal Cou rt , the Commission has previously found that in such cases the Federal Court is only asked to examine a possible violation of federal substantive or procedural law . Apa rt from noting a violation of a federal law conceming evidence, the court is obliged to base its judgment on the facts as they,have been established by the previous instance . For these reasons, the Commission has found that "a question of law of this type - a violation of federal material or procedural law - does not necessarily require oral proceedings" (cf . No . 7211/75 . ibid .) . The Commission also recalls the case-law of the Convention organs that the reading out aloud of the operative pan of the judgment alone is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of A rt icle 6 para . I (see Axen v . Federal Republic of Germany . Comnt . Repo rt 14 .12 .81, para . 85) . In the light of these obse rv ations the Commission notes in the instant case that the Federal Court could only uphold or dismiss the appeal . The operative pa rt of the judgment consisted merely of the statement that the judgment of the Coun of Appeal was confirmed . Alternatively, the Federal Court could have upheld the appeal as it had been presented or, if the appeal was not ready forjudgment as the facts had been insufficiently determined by the Court of Appeal, retum the case back to that court . The .public pronouncement of a judgment of this kind is consequently hardly of a nature to serve any of the objectives which the principle of public proceedings is designed to achieve . I , . . An examination by the Commission of the different complaints relating to the fairness or the publicity of the proceedings does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in Article 6 para . I of the Convention . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinents Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© panie a un long procÃ¨s avec une entreprise qu'i( atnit chargÃ©e de travaux d'agrandissement de sa villa . AprÃ¨s une expertise et une surexpenise, le tribunal de premiÃ¨re insrance rendit un jugement aux termes duquel le requÃ©rant devait Ã l'enveprise une somme de 9 .00 0 FS et les frais, par 19 .400 FS, Ã©taient supponÃ©s par moiriÃ© par chacune des panies. Saisie par les deux panies, la cour d'appel confirma !e jugemenr au principal mais modifia la rÃ©panition des frais : trois quans Ã la charge du requÃ©rant . un quart Ã la charge de son adversaire . Le requÃ©rant recourut en rÃ©forme au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral . Ce dentier statua sans audience ni mÃ©moire Ã©crit de l'intirnÃ©, en application de l'article 60 clt . 2 de la Loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur l'organisation judiciaire . Il rejeta le recours . Le requÃ©rant saisit Ã©galement le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral d'un recours de droit public, se plaigrmttt d'nrbitraire . violation du droit d'@ere entendu et discrimination de la pan dn juge de premiÃ¨re instance . ainsi que d'nrbitraire et dÃ©ni de justice de la pan de la cour d'appel . Le recours de droit public fut rejetÃ©.
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extraits ) 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de la maniÃ¨re dont le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral a traitÃ© son recours de droit public et du fait que cette juridiction n'a pas tenu d'audience publique ni prononcÃ© publiquement son arrÃ¨t . 11 se plaint Ã©galement de ce que, ni dans cette procÃ©dure ni dans celle concernant son recours en rÃ©forme, les juges du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral n'ont dÃ©libÃ©rÃ© et votÃ© en public . 11 invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'anicle 6 par . I . Toutefois, la Commission rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle l'article 6 par . 1 n'est pas applicable Ã la procÃ©dure devant une Cour constitutionnelle car pareille juridiction n'est pas appelÃ©e Ã trancher une contestation ponant sur un droit de caractÃ¨re privÃ© en se fondant sur le droit matÃ©riel en vigueur, qu'il soit du droit privÃ© ou du droit public (voir No 8410/78, dÃ©c . 13 .12 .79, D .R . 18 p . 216) . En outre, dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint que les juges du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral n'ont pas dÃ©libÃ©rÃ© ni votÃ© en public sur son recours en rÃ©forme, la Commission fait remarquer que la Convention ne consacre pas un tel droit . La requÃªte doit donc, sur ce point, Ã©tre rejetÃ©e comme incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention, au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 .
b) Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement que, dans la procÃ©dure concernant son recour .L .AG et cour d'appel s),enrÃ©fomlTibuadÃ©rn'psetulimÃ©(R ni prononcÃ© son arrÃ©t publiquement . S'agissant du grief selon lequel le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral n'a pas jugÃ© utile de recueillir les observations des intimÃ©s, la Commission rappelle sa jurisprudence relative aux recours en mati8re civile selon laquelle le requÃ©rant qui a pu dÃ©velopper l'ensemble de son argumentation par Ã©crit ne peut pas se plaindre du non-respect du principe de l'Ã©galitÃ© des armes Ã son dÃ©triment (voir No 7211/75, dÃ©c . 6 .10 .76, D .R . 7 p . 104) .
Sur la question gÃ©nÃ©rale de l'oralitÃ© de la procÃ©dure dans les recours en rÃ©forme devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, la Commission a prÃ©cÃ©demment constatÃ© qu'en pareil cas cette juridiction n'est appelÃ©e Ã examiner qu'une Ã©ventuelle violation du droit matÃ©riel fÃ©dÃ©ral ou des normes fÃ©dÃ©rales de procÃ©dure . Sauf Ã constater une violation d'une disposition du droit fÃ©dÃ©ral en matiÃ¨re de preuves, le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral est tenu de fonder son arr@t sur les faits tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© constatÃ©s par le premier juge . Aussi la Commission a-t-elle estimÃ© qu'une â¢ telle question de droit - violation du droit matÃ©riel ou procÃ©dural fÃ©dÃ©ral - n'exige pas nÃ©cessairement une procÃ©dure orale(cf. No 7211/75, ibid .) . La Commission rappelle Ã©galement la jurisprudence des organes de la Convention selon laquelle la lecture Ã haute voix du seul dispositif d'un jugement satisfait aux exigences de l'article 6 par . 1(voir Axen c/RÃ©p .FÃ©d .d'Allemagne, rapport Comm . 14 .12 .81, par . 85) . . Cela'Ã©tant, la Commission relÃ¨ve qu'en l'espÃ¨ce le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral ne pouvait qu'accueillir ou rejeter le recours . Le dispositif de l'arrÃ©t consistait simplement Ã dÃ©clarer que le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral confirmait l'arrÃªt de la cour d'appel . Alternativement, le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral aurait pu donner suite ati recours tel qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©, ou si le recours n'Ã©tait pas en Ã©tat au motif que les faits auraient Ã©tÃ© insuffisamment Ã©tablis par la cour d'appel, il pouvait renvoyer l'affaire Ã cette cour . Le prononcÃ© public d'un arrÃ¨t de ce genre n'est par consÃ©quent guÃ¨re de nature Ã servir l'un des objectifs que le principe de la publicitÃ©de la procÃ©dure vise Ã atteindre . L'examen par la Commission des diffÃ©rents g~iefs relatifs Ã l'Ã©quitÃ© ou Ã la publicitÃ© de la procÃ©dure ne rÃ©vÃ¨le dÃ©s lors aucune apparence de .violation des droits et libertÃ©s consacrÃ©s par l'article 6 par . 1 de la Convention .
Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est, sur ce point, manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sen . 2 de la Convention . sdel'artic27p
246Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 01/12/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page