Strasbourg and why you must give reasons on domestic appeals

6 October 2014 by

MO201110701289983ARHansen v. Norway, ECtHR, 2 October, read judgment

In any system of appeals, there is always a tension between giving everyone a fair hearing and concentrating on the appeals which do stand a reasonable prospect of success. The UK, like many countries, has introduced some filters on civil appeals in relatively recent times, enabling unmeritorious appeals to be dismissed at the threshold. In doing so, it gives short (sometimes very short) reasons for refusing permission.

You might have thought that this was a classic area where Strasbourg would be wary about intervening in domestic practice and striking the balance between speed and fairness. Yet the Court was persuaded that the Norwegians got the balance wrong, and found a breach of Article 6(1). We therefore need to read it carefully to see whether the same could be said about our system.

A Norwegian saga

Mr Hroar Hansen was involved in long-running litigation with a company (Ekheim Invest) to whom his ex-wife (Mrs B) had sold a property in 2005. A previous claim by him against Mrs B in respect of the property had failed in 2001. Undeterred, he said in the claim against the company that, despite the sale in 2005, the property was still half his, and the purchase took subject to his rights. In 2008, the Fredrikstad City Court was unpersuaded; Mrs B had had her sole interest in the property confirmed by the 2001 judgment, and hence she could pass full title to Ekheim Invest.

But Mr Hansen did not stop there. He appealed from the City Court to the Borgarting High Court (my pic is an action shot taken there). He complained about the way the City Court had conducted the case, truncating the hearing length from 3 days to 5 hours, and then showing a lack of interest in Mr H’s witnesses.

The High Court refused to admit his appeal.

Its reasons were concise, to say the least:

The High Court finds it clear that the appeal will not succeed, and that its admission should therefore be refused pursuant to Article 29-13(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

That Article was in similar terms; said appeals could be refused to be admitted if the Court “finds it clear that the appeal will not succeed.”

In September 2008, the Supreme Court rejected a further attempt to appeal. So end of story domestically, and in April 2009 Mr H started his long weary way to Strasbourg.

At which point things started moving Mr Hansen’s way. In a judgment in September 2009, in proceedings affecting other parties, the Supreme Court decided that the civil courts were duty-bound to give reasons, and subsequently the civil procedure rules were changed to reflect this.

But this still left Mr Hansen high and dry, because his case had been finally determined.

Strasbourg

There was an interesting debate as to whether Article 6(1) was engaged at all. The Government said Mr H had his Art.6-compliant run before the City Court, and that he had no Art.6(1) right in terms of a review of that adverse decision. The Court said that the underlying claim was plainly a dispute over a civil right (his alleged share in the property), and the “prevailing approach” was that Art. 6(1) was also applicable to leave to appeal proceedings: [55].

Whilst the Convention does not compel member states to set up courts of appeal or of cassation, if they did so, then they were duty bound to ensure that parties enjoyed the fundamental guarantees under Article 6(1).   But an appeal does not have to be a complete re-run:

73….account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order and of the role of the appellate court therein….. In order to determine whether the requirements of fairness in Article 6 were met in the present case, it is necessary to consider matters such as the nature of the filtering procedure and its significance in the context of the civil proceedings as a whole, the scope of the powers of the High Court, and the manner in which the applicant’s interests were actually presented and protected before the High Court.

The Court then turned to the case in hand. It rejected the criticisms of the City Court’s conduct of the hearing, and indeed of the adequacy of the reasons given for dismissing the claim.

It then noted that the High Court’s reason was no more than a paraphrase of the then current rule of procedure. At [80]-[81], it pointed out that this sort of conclusory reasoning had not given rise to Art. 6(1) breaches in previous Strasbourg decisions about refusing leave to appeal, whether at second instance or third instance. The nature of the issue in such cases was whether there were or were not reasonable prospects of success. So no breach so far.

Then the finding of breach

82.  However, the Court observes that the High Court’s jurisdiction was not limited to questions of law and procedure but extended also to questions of fact. In the case under consideration, the applicant 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 his opportunity to adduce witness- and documentary evidence regarding certain issues of fact….. The Court is not convinced in the concrete circumstances that the High Court’s reasoning in its decision of 12 June 2008 did address the essence of the issue to be decided by it….. in a manner that adequately reflected its role at the relevant procedural stage as an appellate court entrusted with full jurisdiction and that it did so with due regard to the applicant’s interests….

Similarly, the reasons provided did not make it possible for him to exercise his further right of appeal to the Supreme Court, with the Art.6(1) right attaching thereto.

When it came to just satisfaction, the applicant got short shrift, as so commonly in Article 6 cases. The Court was not going to speculate in whether the outcome might have been different, but though being prepared to accept that Mr H might have suffered some anguish and distress, found that the finding of a violation was itself adequate just satisfaction.

Comment

You know you are going to get a bit of a puzzler, when you see the Court talking about “concrete circumstances”. Given that the filtering system seems to have been passed muster when it came to an assessment of the underlying merits, what were those circumstances which made the difference?  As per [82], these seemed to be Mr H’s complaints about the conduct of the proceedings below. Strasbourg had earlier decided that those complaints did not give rise to an independent breach of Article 6(1). But the Court seems to have thought that these points should have been addressed by the High Court when refusing to admit the appeal, and hence to that extent only, there was a breach of the duty to give reasons.

As often, you get a little more from the (Norwegian) dissent than from the majority judgment. Judge Mose observed in [3] that the decision to cut the hearing before the City Court down to size was taken precisely because of the Court’s view of the effect of the original judgment between Mr H and Mrs B in 2001; most of his witnesses had given evidence in those proceedings. He disagreed with the suggestion that there was a distinction to be drawn between factual and legal issues: [12]. And he parted with a warning that the majority’s reasoning might cut across legitimate differences between the practices in member states.

The dissenter’s parting shot is salutary. Hansen will undoubtedly be used to argue that a domestic refusal of leave must go further than a paraphrase of the rules. But the fact/law distinction is a treacherous one to seek to draw in practice, if the approach to the facts was taken precisely because of the lower courts’ view of the law.

Certainly one to read. But my hunch is that sooner or later domestic courts will shunt the decision off into a legal siding, and I do not think it is going to terrify appellate judges, who usually say rather more than the statutory formula anyway when refusing permission to appeal.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: