Information Note on the Court’s case-law 201
November 2016
Saliba v. Malta - 24221/13
Judgment 29.11.2016 [Section IV]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Failure of domestic authorities to thoroughly assess evidence in civil proceedings: violation
Facts – Mr and Ms Z. sued the applicant in civil proceedings for damage resulting from a robbery that had taken place in their home five years previously. In retrospect, although he had not done so at the time, Mr Z considered that he recognised the applicant as one of the robbers. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair trial contrary to Article 6 of the Convention as the domestic courts had failed to give attention to the validity, credibility and relevance of the evidence before them.
Law – Article 6 § 1: Article 6 § 1 placed a tribunal under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties. Contracting States had greater latitude when dealing with cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they had when dealing with criminal cases. However, when examining proceedings that fell within the civil-law aspect of Article 6 it was necessary to draw inspiration from the approach to criminal-law matters. There was no doubt that in cases imputing civil responsibility for damage arising out of criminal acts it was imperative that the domestic decisions were based on a thorough assessment of the evidence presented and that the decisions contained adequate reasons due to the harsh consequences which could ensue from such findings.
The first-instance court’s conclusions were based on Mr Z’s inconsistent testimony. No account had been taken of witness statements raising doubts as to the veracity of his testimony. In a criminal context inconsistencies between a witness’s own statements given at various stages, as well as serious inconsistencies between different types of evidence, would normally give rise to a serious ground for challenging the credibility of the witness and the probative value of his or her testimony. It was striking that, while highlighting Mr Z’s inconsistencies, the domestic court gave no reasons as to why it considered that his statements remained credible and reliable. Such consideration was all the more necessary given that Mr Z’s identification of the applicant had occurred only five years after the robbery.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: most appropriate form of redress would be reopening of the proceedings should the applicant so request; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
© 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