Post by account_disabled on Jan 8, 2024 10:19:41 GMT
Ainterference with the applicants right of access to the court in order to examine the contraventional complaint. The Court recalled that the right of access to the court is not absolute. The restrictions do not limit access to the court if the right is not affected in its substance. A limitation of the right of access to the court is not reconciled with art. of the Convention unless it pursues a legitimate goal and there is a reasonable ratio of proportionality between the means used and the goal pursued. In this case the Court observed that the court based its decision on the provisions of art. para. of the Civil Procedure Code which regulates the procedure for regularization of an application.
This procedure does not replace a judicial investigation and does not Country Email List anticipate the phase of admission of evidence but it is a mandatory stage that aims to impose a certain discipline on the plaintiffs in order to avoid any delay in the procedure. The Court found that the plaintiffs must submit a complete application to the court to allow the trial judge to examine the case at the first hearing. The Court therefore considered that in this case the interference was provided for by law and was aimed at ensuring a good administration of justice. interference the Court did not lose sight of the special character of the appeal in contraventional matters.
Thus he revealed that Government Ordinance no. regarding the special procedure regarding contravention complaints expressly provides for an active role of the court the latter having to summon the parties and interrogate all the persons involved. At the same time the Court found that the elements indicated in art. of the Code of Civil Procedure the omission of which in the form could lead to the cancellation of the request are elements without which the examination of the.
This procedure does not replace a judicial investigation and does not Country Email List anticipate the phase of admission of evidence but it is a mandatory stage that aims to impose a certain discipline on the plaintiffs in order to avoid any delay in the procedure. The Court found that the plaintiffs must submit a complete application to the court to allow the trial judge to examine the case at the first hearing. The Court therefore considered that in this case the interference was provided for by law and was aimed at ensuring a good administration of justice. interference the Court did not lose sight of the special character of the appeal in contraventional matters.
Thus he revealed that Government Ordinance no. regarding the special procedure regarding contravention complaints expressly provides for an active role of the court the latter having to summon the parties and interrogate all the persons involved. At the same time the Court found that the elements indicated in art. of the Code of Civil Procedure the omission of which in the form could lead to the cancellation of the request are elements without which the examination of the.