EIT: Valituksen seulominen ilman perusteluita hovioikeudessa loukkasi EIS 6 artiklaa

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on tänään antanut ensimmäisen langettavan tuomion siitä, miten oikeus oikeudenmukaiseen oikeudenkäyntiin edellyttää perusteltua ratkaisua myös hovioikeudessa valituksen käsittelyssä.

EIT:n tuomio saattaa olla merkityksellinen myös Suomessa käytössä olevan jatkokäsittelylupajärjestelmän kannalta. Nyt annetun tuomion valossa voidaan perustellusti kysyä, onko hovioikeuksien jatkokäsittelyluvan hylkäävissä päätöksissä toteama “Hovioikeus on tutkinut jatkokäsittelyluvan myöntämisen edellytykset” riittävä täyttämään ihmisoikeussopimuksen 6 artiklan vaatimukset.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Hansen v. Norway (application no. 15319/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the failure to give reasons for the refusal to admit for examination a civil appeal subjected to a filtering procedure before a Norwegian High Court (lagmannsrett). The filtering mechanism was introduced by changes to the Norwegian Code of Civil Procedure in 2005 in order to stop clearly unmeritorious appeals to the high courts.

The Court found in particular that the reason given by the Borgarting High Court for refusing to admit Mr Hansen’s appeal, namely that his case clearly had no prospect of success, had been insufficient. Notably, the High Court’s reasoning had not addressed the essence of the issue to be decided by it, namely the shortening of the hearing before the first-instance court in Mr Hansen’s case, in a manner that adequately reflected its role as an appellate court entrusted with full jurisdiction or that it had done so with due regard to Mr Hansen’s interests. Furthermore, it did not enable him to effectively exercise his right to appeal to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett).

This judgment is noteworthy in that it is the first time that the Court has found a violation of the Article 6 fair hearing guarantee on account of lack of reasoning by an appellate court (here entrusted with competence to review questions of fact and of law and acting at an intermediate level) when refusing to admit an appeal for examination on the ground of lack of prospects of success.

The Court noted, however, that current national judicial practice under the Norwegian Code of Civil Procedure and legislative changes in this area now impose a general obligation for Norwegian high courts to state reasons for a decision refusing admission of an appeal.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here