Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 178
October 2014
Hansen v. Norway - 15319/09
Judgment 2.10.2014 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Failure of filtering instance to give reasons for its refusal to admit an appeal for examination: violation
Facts – The High Court refused to admit for examination a civil appeal by the applicant against a decision by the City Court after finding that “it was clear that it would not succeed”. This was the formula set out in the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant’s further appeal against the High Court’s ruling was then rejected by the Appeals Leave Committee of the Supreme Court on the grounds that its jurisdiction was confined to reviewing the High Court procedure.
In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the High Court should have given more detailed reasons for its decision to dismiss his appeal.
Law – Article 6 § 1
(a)  Admissibility – Although, as noted in Valchev and Others v. Bulgaria,* there had been cases in which leave-to-appeal proceedings had been found not to involve a “determination” of civil rights, the prevailing approach seemed to be that Article 6 § 1 did apply to such proceedings.** The manner of its application depended on the special features of the proceedings, account being taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order and of the role of the appellate or cassation court therein. In the instant case, the City Court’s judgment had determined the dispute since, following the High Court’s refusal to admit the appeal, the result of the proceedings seen as a whole was directly decisive for the right in question. Article 6 § 1 was accordingly applicable.
Conclusion: admissible (unanimously).
(b)  Merits – The applicant had appealed to the High Court against the City Court’s examination of his pleas on points of law and its sudden decision to drastically shorten the hearing from three days to five hours thereby substantially reducing the time available to hear witnesses and present evidence. The High Court’s jurisdiction was not limited to questions of law and procedure but extended also to questions of fact. However, the High Court had simply paraphrased the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that it was clear that it would not succeed. The Court was not convinced that this reason given by the High Court had addressed the essence of the issue to be decided by it in a manner that adequately reflected its role as an appellate court entrusted with full jurisdiction or that it had acted with due regard to the applicant’s interests.
The Court also took into account the fact that the High Court’s decision could itself form the subject of an appeal to the Appeals Leave Committee of the Supreme Court, whose role was to consider the High Court’s application of the law and assessment of the evidence in so far as it related to points of procedure. However, it was not persuaded that the reasons stated by the High Court for refusing to admit the applicant’s appeal had made it possible for him to exercise effectively his right of appeal to the Supreme Court. 
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: The domestic judicial and legislative changes that had been made and the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.
*  Valchev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), 47450/11, 26659/12 and 53966/12, 21 January 2014, Information Note 171.
**  Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 9562/81, 2 March 1987; and Martinie v. France [GC], 58675/00, 12 April 2006, Information Note 85.

© 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