Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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