Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
December 1997
Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain - 26737/95
Judgment 19.12.1997
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Fair hearing
Civil appeal to Supreme Court declared inadmissible because new rules of procedure: no violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
Recapitulation of case-law: primarily for national authorities to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation – both Supreme Court and Constitutional Court had considered that principle of application with immediate effect should also apply to appeals that had not been entered with Supreme Court by 6 May 1992 (when new law had come into force) but in respect of which notice of appeal had already been given in accordance with rules previously in force – not for Court to express view on appropriateness of domestic courts’ choice of policy as regards case-law; its task was confined to determining whether consequences of that choice were in conformity with Convention.
Recapitulation of case-law on “right to a tribunal” – solution adopted in instant case by Spanish courts had followed a generally recognised principle that, save where expressly provided to the contrary, procedural rules applied immediately to proceedings that were under way – aim pursued by statutory amendment had been legitimate: to increase financial threshold for appeals to Supreme Court in that sphere.
Recapitulation of case-law on application of Article 6 to procedures in courts of appeal and of cassation – given special nature of Supreme Court’s role as court of cassation, Court was able to accept that procedure followed in the Supreme Court could be more formal – appeal to Supreme Court had been made in instant case after applicant’s claims had been heard by both Madrid Court of First Instance and Audiencia provincial sitting as an appellate court, each of which had had full jurisdiction – fairness of proceedings in those courts had not in any way been called into question before Court – right of access to a court not unduly hindered.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
Role of Article 6 § 1 in relation to Article 13 was that of a lex specialis, requirements of latter being absorbed by those of former.
Conclusion: unnecessary to rule on complaint (unanimously).
© 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