Information Note on the Court’s case-law 60
January 2004
A. v. Finland (dec.) - 44998/98
Decision 8.1.2004 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Public hearing
Oral hearing
Lack of oral hearing in disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer: inadmissible
Facts: The applicant, who is a lawyer, was acting in criminal proceedings on behalf of some clients. The claims he submitted on their behalf were rejected by the District Court. As a result, he submitted a lengthy notice of appeal criticising the District Court’s decision. The presiding judge in these proceedings complained to the Bar Association about the defamatory language used by the applicant in the notice of appeal. Her complaint was transferred to the Disciplinary Board of the Bar Association, which decided to give the applicant a private warning, considering that his notice of appeal contained belittling and impertinent criticism aimed personally at the presiding judge of the court. The applicant complained that he was unable to defend himself properly, without an appeal or an oral hearing against the disciplinary decision.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (oral hearing): Had the sanction imposed on the applicant involved a public warning or disbarment, the applicant could have lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Moreover, the applicant could have requested an oral hearing given that prior to the disciplinary decision being served on him (but after it had been adopted), an amendment to the Code of Judicial Procedure foreseeing this possibility had come into force. Assuming this amendment were not taken into account in the present case given its time of entry into force, the reservation by Finland under the Convention, which exempted it from the obligation to hold hearings before courts of appeal, would come into play: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 10: The interference was prescribed by law (the Advocates Act) and proportionate to the aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. The Disciplinary Board’s reasoning that the applicant’s statements were of a disparaging nature as concerns the presiding judge were sufficient and relevant to justify the interference: manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy