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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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