Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Pellegrini v. Italy

Pellegrini v. Italy 571 12 hrcd [ 2001 ] PELLEGRINI v. ITALY Right to a fair trial – violation Article 6, Section 1 When proceedings were undertaken concerning granting an authority to enforce a decree which emanated from the courts of a country which did not apply the Convention, a review examining whether Article 6 guarantees had been secured was necessary, especially where a matter of capital importance to the parties was at stake in the application for the authority. Inherent in the right to adversarial process was the opportunity which each party to the proceedings, whether criminal or civil, had in principle to be given to examine and contest any evidence or observation submitted to the court with a view to influencing its decision. That opportunity could not be denied on the ground that the applicant had no defence to the petition for a decree of nullity as it was based on an undisputed objectively verifiable fact, the reason being that it was solely for the parties to a dispute to decide whether a response to evidence adduced by the other party or witnesses was called for. In a judgment delivered on 20 July 2001 in the case of Pellegrini http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Rights Case Digest Brill

Pellegrini v. Italy

Human Rights Case Digest , Volume 12 (7-8): 571 – Jan 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/pellegrini-v-italy-iGL0baZ090

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2001 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0965-934X
eISSN
1571-8131
DOI
10.1163/157181301760578271
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

571 12 hrcd [ 2001 ] PELLEGRINI v. ITALY Right to a fair trial – violation Article 6, Section 1 When proceedings were undertaken concerning granting an authority to enforce a decree which emanated from the courts of a country which did not apply the Convention, a review examining whether Article 6 guarantees had been secured was necessary, especially where a matter of capital importance to the parties was at stake in the application for the authority. Inherent in the right to adversarial process was the opportunity which each party to the proceedings, whether criminal or civil, had in principle to be given to examine and contest any evidence or observation submitted to the court with a view to influencing its decision. That opportunity could not be denied on the ground that the applicant had no defence to the petition for a decree of nullity as it was based on an undisputed objectively verifiable fact, the reason being that it was solely for the parties to a dispute to decide whether a response to evidence adduced by the other party or witnesses was called for. In a judgment delivered on 20 July 2001 in the case of Pellegrini

Journal

Human Rights Case DigestBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.