519 citiri

Curtea a considerat în mai multe rânduri că nu este necesar să se stabilească dacă omisiunea de a comunica un document a cauzat reclamantului un prejudiciu efectiv

52. The Court considers that the applicant indeed had a legitimate interest in receiving copies of the appeals so as to be able to reply to them. In this connection it is noteworthy that the Court has held on many occasions that it does not need to be determined whether the omission to communicate a document caused the applicant actual prejudice; the existence of a violation is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice. It was for the applicant to judge whether or not a document called for her comments (see, among other authorities, Milatová and Others, cited above, § 65, and H.A.L. v. Finland, no. 38267/97, § 47, 27 January 2004).

Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului
(Hotărârea din data de 21 iulie 2009, Gaspari împotriva Sloveniei, disponibilă aici)

Back To Top