The Austrian District and Regional Real Property Transactions Commission refused to approve the sale of a number of plots of land. The applicant challenged the refusal alleging bias and contending that his article 6 rights were violated for that reason. The Austrian statute provided that the refusal of approval rendered the sale null and void.
Held: ‘In the present case, when Ringeisen purchased property from the Roth couple, he had a right to have the contract for sale which they had made with him approved if he fulfilled, as he claimed to do, the conditions laid down in the Act. Although it was applying rules of administrative law, the Regional Commission’s decision was to be decisive for the relations in civil law (‘de caractere civil’) between Ringeisen and the Roth couple. This is enough to make it necessary for the court to decide whether or not the proceedings in this case complied with the requirements of article 6(1) of the Convention.’
In connection with an article 6 claim: ”For article 6(1) to be applicable to a case (‘contestation’) it is not necessary that both parties to the proceedings should be private persons, which is the view of the majority of the Commission and of the Government. The wording of article 6(1) is far wider; the French expression ‘contestations sur (des) droits et obligations de caractere civil’ covers all proceedings the result of which is decisive for private rights and obligations. The English text, ‘determination of . . civil rights and obligations’, confirms this interpretation.
The character of the legislation which governs how the matter is to be determined (civil, commercial, administrative law, etc) and that of the authority which is invested with jurisdiction in the matter (ordinary court, administrative body, etc) are therefore of little consequence.’
Citations:
2614/65, [1971] ECHR 2, (1971) 1 EHRR 455
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – MR v Austria ECHR 18-Jul-1968
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Ringeisen v Austria ECHR 22-Jun-1972
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award. . .
See also – Ringeisen v Austria ECHR 23-Jun-1973
(Interpretation) . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School and Others CA 20-Jan-2010
The claimant was a teaching assistant. A complaint had been made that he had kissed a boy having work experience at the school, but it had been decided that no criminal prosecution would follow. He sought judicial review of the school’s decision to . .
Applied – Le Compte, Van Leuven And De Meyere v Belgium ECHR 23-Jun-1981
The applicants were suspended from practising medicine for three months by the Provincial Council of the Ordre des medecins. They appealed unsuccessfully to the Appeal Council and again unsuccessfully to the Court de Cassation. Dr Le Compte . .
Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School SC 29-Jun-2011
The claimant was employed as a teaching assistant. He was suspended after allegations of sexual misbehaviour with boy at the school. He refused to take part in the disciplinary proceedings until the police investigation was concluded. A decision was . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
Cited – QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-May-2020
Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Land
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.164868
