State agency. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
A. Admissibility
1. Arguments by the parties
22. The Government asserted that Article 6 did not apply to the proceedings in question, as the social insurance schemes fell outside the scope of "civil rights and obligations". In any event they considered this complaint manifestly ill-founded.
23. The applicant claimed that her "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 had been at stake.
2. The Court's assessment
24. Regarding the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that this provision is applicable in the field of social insurance, including welfare assistance (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 46, Series A No. 263, and Salesi v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 19). The Court further observes that the unemployment allowances at issue were individual and pecuniary in nature and were aimed at compensating for loss of means of subsistence resulting from unemployment (see T.M. v. Finland (dec.), No. 22377/93, 21 October 1996). Furthermore, it cannot be disputed that this pecuniary "right" was the subject of a "dispute" before the domestic courts (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], No. 33804/96, §§ 23 et seq., ECHR 2000-X). Accordingly, Article 6 § 1 is applicable in the instant case.
25. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Arguments by the parties
26. The applicant maintained that no public interest could justify the joining of a prosecutor as parties defendant in claims lodged by unemployed people against State bodies. She argued that the "interest of law" in her case had to be protected by the courts without interference from the Prosecutor's Office.
27. She also emphasised that in his appeal the prosecutor requested the appeal court to quash the judgment in part and the wording he had used could only be interpreted as a direct instruction, therefore it cannot be said that the court had not been bound by the prosecutor's protest.
28. The Government claimed that participation of the prosecutor in the proceedings at issue had not violated the principle of equality of arms, nor in any other way had it impaired fairness of the trial, as the appeal court had not been bound by the prosecutor's arguments. Moreover, the defendant itself lodged its appeal against the judgment of 25 September 2000, using the same arguments as were used in the prosecutor's protest, and this appeal was examined together with the protest and the appeal submitted by the applicant.
29. They further stressed that the prosecutor had participated in the case in accordance with relevant provisions of the domestic law in force at the material time. He acted in the interest of law, and not in favour of any party to the proceedings, thus his participation had been justified by the public interest.
2. The Court's assessment
30. The Court reiterates that the principle of equality of arms is one element of the broader concept of fair trial, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It requires "a fair balance between the parties": each party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage {vis-a-vis} his opponent (see Yvon v. France, No. 44962/98, § 31, ECHR 2003-V; {Niderost-Huber} v. Switzerland, 18 February 1997, §
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 ... 15 16
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
