Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Svencioniene v Lithuania

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : and-352-venand-269-ionienand-233-v-lithuania
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 25, 2008, 09:56 AM
Article ID : 84853

(European Court of Human Rights; 25 November 2008)

At the first instance hearing of the wife's claim for financial compensation on divorce, the wife was awarded about 2,442 Euros. The husband appealed. The notice of the husband's appeal was not received by the wife, having been sent to an incorrect address. The husband was notified of and participated in the appeal proceedings; the appeal court allowed his appeal and reduced the wife's compensation to about 1,013 Euros. The wife's subsequent appeal was dismissed on the basis that, while the hearing notice had been sent to the wrong address, the wife had failed to show that had she been present she would have adduced any evidence that could have led to a different result.

Respect for the right to a fair hearing, guaranteed by European Convention on Human Rights, Art 6(1), required that the wife be properly informed about the appellate process and that she be given the opportunity to comment on the husband's submissions. As the appeal court had not verified whether the wife had been duly apprised of the hearing, that practice, which was normally followed in the Lithuanian courts, had not been followed in this case. The husband's participation at the appeal hearing had enabled the husband to state his arguments on the merits of the case, arguments that were not communicated to the wife and to which she could not reply. Thus, the effect that the wife's observations might have had on the appellate decision could not be assessed. More importantly, what was at stake was a litigant's confidence in the workings of justice, based, inter alia, on the knowledge that an opportunity would be given to express views on every document in the file. There had been a violation of Art 6(1).

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from