You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2011.

On November 29th 2009, 57.5% of the 2,709,287 votes were in favor of the popular initiative to forbid the building of minaret in Switzerland. As a result, article 72 of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland was modified.

Mr. Hafid Ouardiri is a Muslim living in Switzerland who is working as the director of the “Inter-Knowing Foundation“.

On December 15th 2009, the applicant lodged his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that to forbid to build a minaret was a violation of articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. He added that the lack of effective remedy was a violation of article 13. On May 11th 2010, the application was communicated to the agent of the Swiss government.

On September 15th 2010, the Swiss government replied and on November 9th 2010 the applicant submitted his observations. Most of the debate is on the two first questions on the quality of victim (art.34) and if all domestic remedies have been exhausted  (art.35-1). The Swiss government is even refusing to examine the allegations of violations of articles 9 and 14 of the Convention (.34) and requested the Court to do the same. N.G.O European Center for Law and Justice submitted briefs amicus curiae to the Court as well as N.G.O Open Society Justice Initiative.

The applicant is represented by Me Georges-Albert Dal (Brussels), Me Bertrand Favreau (Bordeaux), Me Pascal Maurer (Geneve), Me Christophe Pettiti (Paris) and Me Pierre de Preux (Geneve).

Update :

On June 28th 2011, the Court found the application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant didn’t apply for a permit to build a minaret and therefore couldn’t be considered as a victim under article 34 of the Convention.

On June 6th 2006, the Court found in judgment Clement v. France (37876/02) a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention on the ground that the length of the disciplinary proceedings wasn’t “within reasonable time” and awarded him €5,000 for damages. In fact, it took more than 8 years (1995-2003) and 3 courts for the applicant to have a definitive decision on a disciplinary complain against him in Roubaix. The applicant was represented by Me Nadia Weiler-Strasser (Sarreguemines).

On September 15th 2010, the Committee of Ministers adopted a Resolution DH(2010)128 which found satisfying the general measures taken by the French government to prevent further violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. The first measure is that a chief inspector of the administrative justice might make recommendations upon request (art. R112-2 of the code of administrative justice). The second measure is according to the French government the law 2002-1138 of September 9th 2002. But according to the Me Nadia Weiler-Strasser (see below her opinion), none of this measures are preventing further violation of article 6-1.

Indeed, according to the statistics of the annual report 2010, the length of proceedings in 2009 was still on average 5 years and 1 month if the litigation reaches the 3 administrative courts (administrative tribunal, administrative appeal court and administrative supreme court).

The Committee of Ministers found also satisfying the new remedy (art.R311-1 of the code of administrative justice) to obtain damages in the administrative supreme court (conseil d’etat) following a violation of the right to “a hearing within a reasonable time”. But according to Me Nadia Weiler-Strasser (see below her opinion) the administrative supreme court is not an independent and impartial tribunal because his members are directly nominated by the executive (art.13 of the Constitution). who is the defendant in this litigation.

She added that damages awarded are very low. Her findings are confirmed by the decision Durand v. France (4912/10) in which the Court found that the damages awarded by the administrative supreme court are 50% lower than the ones awarded by the Court.

Since September 2005, according to the case-law database Legifrance, the administrative supreme court have only heard 28 cases. In 2010, the average length of this remedy was 16 months (on 4 cases).

Ms. Poirot is severely disabled and is living in a medical center of the NGO “APF” in Epinal. She communicates only through a voice synthesis device or by writing and needs living assistance services on daily basis.

On March 14th 2001, she complained to a member of staff of the medical center that a caregiver of the center has been sexually abusing her for the last 6 years. She alleged to have been raped and sexually assaulted by him. On August 16th 2001, the district attorney refused to investigate further her criminal complain. On October 31st 2001, the applicant pressed criminal charges for “rape” and “sexual assault” to an investigation judge together with a claim for civil damages.

On December 14th 2006, the investigation judge charged the suspect on the lesser charge of “sexual assault“. On December 22nd 2006, the applicant appealed the decision (art.183-6 of the code of penal procedure). On January 9th 2007, the president of the investigation chamber of the appeal court of Nancy dismissed without hearing the appeal on the ground that it should have contained the grounds of the applicant. On February 14th 2007, the president of the criminal chamber of the supreme court (Cour de cassation) rejected her appeal.

On June 28th 2007, the applicant submitted her case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the decision to reject her appeal without hearing was illegal and a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. She added that the law didn’t require appeal letters to be motivated. On March 16th 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.

On July 20th 2009, the agent submitted his observation. On September 10th 2009, the applicant replied with her observations. On October 27th 2009, the French government submitted additional observations. The applicant is represented by Me Elisabeth Lasseront (Epinal).

Update :

On December 15th 2011, the 5th section of the Court found a violation of article 6-1 on the ground that the law didn’t require to indicate the grounds of the appeal.

On October 15th 2009, Mr. Michel Duval was detained pending investigation. On February 3rd 2000, he was handcuffed and shackled during an ultrasound test at the hospital of Laon. Prison guards and police officers were present in the room during the test. On October 1st 2004, he was again handcuffed and shackled for a cardiac test at the hospital of Amiens. On May 14th, 15th, 18th 2005, he was detained under the same security measures for a cardiac test at the hospital of Laon and on June 14th 2005 for an ultrasound test.

On September 28th 2005, handcuffed and shackled, he had a digital rectal exam in front of 2 prison guards in the hospital of Laon. These security measures were taken under an executive order JUSK0440155C of the minister of Justice of November 18th 2004.

On October 15th 2007, the administrative supreme court (conseil d’etat) rejected the motion of the applicant to have the executive order JUSK0440155C annulled.

On April 15th 2008, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that to be shackled and handcuffed during medical exams in front of police officers and prison guards was a violation of articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. He added that the condition of detention during the transfers to the hospital were in violation of article 3. On September 14th 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.

On May 26th 2011, the Court found a violation of article 3 of the Convention on the ground that the security measures and the presence of guards during the medical exams were a degrading treatment.

The applicant was represented by Me Patrice Spinosi (Paris) who was not available for comments.

In February 1998, Mr. Abdalwahab Guerni was contacted by an undercover police officer R. He was introduced to him through a police informant D. The undercover police officer R. asked to purchase drugs. On March 5th 1998, the applicant was arrested when delivering the drugs.

On November 18th 2003, the tribunal of Brugges convicted the applicant to 4 years in prison and to a fine. The applicant had argued that the covert operation was not authorized by law. On May 31th 2006, the appeal court of Gent rejected his appeal and his request to examine the prosecution witnesses R, D and the investigation judge. On 31th October 2006, the supreme court rejected his appeal.

On May 2nd 2007, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that his conviction was based on an entrapment and an illegal covert operation in violation of articles 8 and 6-1 of the Convention. He added that the investigation files were secret for the court in violation of article 6-1 and that he couldn’t examine the prosecution witnesses in violation of article 6-3-d).

On May 5th 2011, the application was communicated to the agent of the Belgium government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. The applicant is represented by Mr. Hans Rieder (Gent) who didn’t reply our request for comments.

On January 23rd 2002, an investigation judge delivered a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Ahmed Bouhajla in an investigation on drug trafficking. On September 27th 2002, the applicant was condemned in absentia to 10 years in prison and to a lifelong ban of France by the tribunal of Paris.

In 2005, he was arrested in the Netherlands and extradited to France. On May 27th 2005, he appealed the judgment.

On September 30th 2005, he was condemned to the same sentence by the tribunal of Paris. The tribunal relied on testimonies of 4 witnesses (A. B. L. Z.) during the police investigation. These witnesses for the prosecution were not summoned by the prosecutor and were absent at the hearing.

The applicant summoned at his own cost the 4 prosecution witnesses for the appeal court hearing on March 14th 2006 but none of them shown up at the hearing. The prosecutor didn’t request a later hearing to summon them himself and didn’t request that a warrant for their immediate arrest be issued by the judges (art.439 of the code of penal procedure). The judges didn’t issue an immediate arrest warrant for the 4 prosecution witnesses but used their testimonies during the investigation to condemn the applicant.

On September 5th 2007, the supreme court rejected the appeal of the applicant based on article 6-3-d) of the Convention on the ground that…the judgment didn’t mention that the applicant made oral observations regarding the absence of the 4 witnesses for the prosecution or requested orally to postpone the hearing to summon them again.

On April 15th 2008, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the conviction based on testimonies of prosecution witnesses absent at trial was a violation of article 6-3-d) of the Convention. The applicant is represented by Me Thomas Bidnic (Paris). On September 2nd 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. On April 16th 2010, the applicant submitted his observation.

On June 7th 2011, the Court found the application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant didn’t exhaust internal remedies and should have have submitted at the hearing written conclusions (art. 459 of the code of penal procedure) to “request” the judges to order a warrant for the immediate arrest of the prosecution witnesses or to postpone the hearing, under article 439 of the code of penal procedure. The applicant allegation that he made oral observations on the respect of article 6-3-d) of the Convention were dismissed by the Court because… it was found that the registrar of the judges of the appeal court of Paris didn’t record any transcript for the hearing of March 16th 2008.

This decision seems ludicrous because only the prosecutor and not the defendant have the right under article 439 to request from the judge the immediate arrest of the witnesses and only the prosecutor have the resources to summon effectively the witnesses (art.560 of the code of penal procedure). In Judgment Mayali v. France (69116/01), the Court found it was the responsibility of the prosecutor to make every effort for the witness for the prosecution to be at the hearing.

Moreover, it was the decision of the judges of the appeal court of Paris to use the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite their absence at the hearing, to convict the applicant, that violate article 6-3-d) of the Convention and the only remedy available for the applicant was the appeal to the supreme court (Cour de cassation).

Finally, if the registrar of the appeal court of Paris don’t record any transcript of the hearings, the examination by the defense lawyer of the prosecution witnesses become powerless.

Update :

According to Me Thomas Bidnic, this decision of the Court is going to force defense lawyers to write conclusions to request the arrest of witnesses absent at trial and to dismiss the written testimony of absent witness.

In France, more than 30,000 asylum seekers who have the right to be housed in special centers (CADA) are being denied this right in violation of article L348-1 of the social and family code and have to wait on average 13 months before being housed in these centers. Thousands of asylum seekers are then forced to homelessness with or without an allowance of €10,83 per day in violation of articles 13 and 14 of the European directive 2003/9/EC. They survive from food handout from charity organizations and every night have to request by phone a bed in a homeless shelter which are often already full.

In the city of Rennes, dozens of asylum seekers became homeless. On February 25th 2011, the NGO “Droit au Logement” occupied an abandoned government building (280 rue de Fougeres) and opened it to 80 asylum seekers. On March 1st 2011, the prefect obtained without any hearing, a possession order from a judge of tribunal of Rennes (art.808 of the code of civil procedure).

On March 4th 2011, 13 asylum seekers and 5 children, submitted an application for interim measures (art.39 of the rules of the Court) to request the suspension of the possession order of March 1st 2011 and to have the prefect offer them immediately appropriate housing (see below). They are represented by Me Melanie Le Verger (Rennes). She argued that the living conditions of the applicants in France are a violation of article 3 of the Convention (M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (30696/09)) and the decision of the judge not to hold hearing and not to communicate to the applicant the legal brief of the prefect are violations of article 6.

On March 10th 2011, the Court requested information on the legal remedies offered to the applicants to have access to decent living conditions and what measures will be taken by the prefect to ensure that the applicants have appropriate living conditions. On April 8th 2011, the agent of the government replied there is no emergency legal remedies available for homeless asylum seekers benefiting from the allowance and that the prefect gives priority in housing to sick individuals and families with babies. He added that on March 16th 2011, 8 applicants on 18 have offers of housing.

On April 29th 2011, Me Melanie Le Verger replied that 7 applicants are still living in the occupied building, 1 applicant is living in a hotel, 2 in CADA, 5 are housed in waiting centers (“pre-CADA”) and 2 have offers for housing in CADA. She also mentioned 14 new applicants and added that due to the refusal of the prefect to offer housing to new asylum seekers, the building was now housing 140 asylum seekers. According to the statistics of the prefect office in Rennes, there is  811 individuals and 93 families with children seeking asylum without any permanent offer of housing (March 30th 2011) and on those only 192 asylum seekers and 22 families are benefiting from the daily allowance.

On May 2nd 2011 at 06:00 am, riot police officers entered the occupied building, detained asylum seekers in their rooms and checked their identity, before forcing them out of the building.

On May 6th, the Court requested information on the 7 applicants who were still living in the occupied building. On May 25th the agent of the government informed the Court that these applicants were living in a hotel waiting for their housing in CADA. On June 16th 2011, Me Melanie Le Verger informed the Court that on June 15th 2011, the 7 applicants, Mr. A. from Somalia who is physically disabled, Ms. S. from China who is suffering from severe Hepatitis C and her husband and Ms. and Mr. E from China who have 2 babies of one and two years old are all homeless again.

On October 21st 2004, the district attorney of Nanterre issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Amar Abdelali in a drug trafficking investigation. On November 6th 2004, the police officers decided to charge him in absentia (art.134 of the code of penal procedure). On June 2nd 2005, the applicant was condemned in absentia to 9 years of prison.

On October 9th 2005, he was arrested and appealed the judgment. On February 2nd 2006, the tribunal of Nanterre dismissed the case on the ground that the accusation was based on illegal wiretapping of cell phones. But on November 23rd 2006 the appeal court of Versailles, found the motion to dismiss of the applicant inadmissible on the ground that suspects charged in absentia don’t enjoy the rights to file due process motions at their court hearing. On April 3rd 2007, the supreme court rejected the appeal of the applicant. On September 14th 2009, the applicant was sentenced to 6 years of prison.

On September 27th 2007, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the refusal to hear his motion to dismiss was a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. The applicant is represented by Me Yves Leberquier (Paris). On November 2nd 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.

On July 14th 1998, Mr. Claude Baudoin was arrested for “assault” on a hospital security guard and then detained on mental health ground by the order of the mayor of Bordeaux. On July 16th 1998, the prefect of Gironde ordered his mental health detention. He was detained in the special detention unit (UMD) of the hospital Cadillac.

On July 28th 1998, the applicant submitted a motion to be released. On May 30th 2002, the appeal court of Bordeaux rejected his motion. On February 14th 2004, the president of the supreme court denied the applicant legal aid to appeal the decision.

In several decisions, the administrative tribunal and the administrative appeal court of Bordeaux annulled all the orders of detention from July 16th 1998 to May 17th 2004 which were giving a legal basis for 6 years of detention.

On August 13th 2003, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that his mental health detention was a violation of article 5-1-e) of the Convention, the absence of information on the ground for detention a violation of article 5-2 and his condition of detention for 6 years in hospital Cadillac was a violation of article 3 of the Convention.

He added that following his arrest he was not brought to a judge in violation of article 5-3 of the Convention, that the requirement to challenge his mental health detention both in administrative and judicial courts was a violation of articles 5-4 and 5-5, that the length of proceedings in administrative court was a violation of article 6-1, that the refusal of legal aid by the supreme court was a violation of article 6-1, that forced medical treatments and seizure of his letters by the hospital were in violation of article 8, keeping him in a detention ruled illegal by the court was also a violation of article 3 and the lack of remedies a violation of article 13. The applicant was represented by Mr Philippe Bernardet a sociology researcher of CNRS.

On July 8th 2005, the motion to be released of the applicant of June 2nd 2004 was rejected by the appeal court of Bordeaux. On February 2006, the motion of October 12th 2005 was again denied.

On September 27th 2007, the Court ruled that most of the allegations of violations of the Convention were inadmissible under articles 35-1 and 35-3 of the Convention on surprising and conflicting grounds. The Court ruled that the applicant was not arrested for “assault” on July 14th 1998 under article 5-1-c) so the allegation of violation of article 5-3 was inadmissible. This means that his arrest didn’t have any legal basis as there is no provision under French law for an arrest on mental health ground (art.5-1-e)) but the Court failed to acknowledge its own allegation of violation of article 5-1 of the Convention. Furthermore the Court ruled that the allegations of violations of article 3 and 8 of the Convention were inadmissible on the ground that the applicant didn’t submit them to the French courts. But the Court didn’t specify which remedies where available to the applicant and which case-law of the French court makes these remedies effective. The Court also found the allegation of violation article 5-5 inadmissible even though it took 7 years for the applicant to have an administrative court annulled the order of detention of July 16th 1998, and that he needed to start another litigation in a civil court to obtain damages following the administrative court ruling. The Court also found inadmissible the allegation of violation of article 5-1-e) for the mental detention of 6 years (except from October 21th 2004 to November 9th 2004)  because the administrative court annulled all the orders of detention even though the applicant didn’t receive any damages for this illegal detention.

On March 23rd 2010, the agent for the French Republic requested the Court to dismiss the claim against the promise to pay €9,000 to the applicant. The Court rejected the request.

On November 18th 2010, the Court found a violation of article 5-1-e) of the Convention, on the ground that there was no order of detention from October 21st 2004 to November 9th 2004. The Court also found a violation of article 5-4 on the ground that the applicant didn’t benefit from a speedy and effective remedy . It awarded the applicant €20,000 for damages and €3,000 for his legal fees.

On January 12th 2003 at 01:15am, Mr. Yves Trévalec unarmed was shot 7 times at close range by 2 police officers of a patrol unit and a dog unit in Liege . The applicant is a journalist and was embedded with a special anti-gang police unit at the time of the shooting. An investigation was opened by an investigation judge for “assault” and carried out by the local police unit.

On March 15th 2005, the prosecutor of the king asked the investigation judge not to charge the 2 shooters on the ground that they acted in self-defense. On May 16th 2006, the tribunal of Liege refused to charge the 2 shooters. The ruling was confirmed by the appeal court of Liege. On April 18th 2007, the supreme court rejected the appeal of the applicant.

On July 16th 2007, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the close range shooting was a violation of article 2 of the Convention. He added that the 3 years investigation was not effective in violation of article 2 and that the court didn’t answer his observations in violation of article 6-1. The applicant was represented by Me Jean Gonthier (Bordeaux). On April 28th 2008, the application was communicated to the agent of the Belgium government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.

On June 14th 2011, the Court found a violation of article 2 of the Convention on the ground that the police of Liege was careless in setting up the embedment of the journalist. The Court found no violation of article 2 in regards with the investigation. It awarded the applicant €0 for his legal fees. The amount of  damages will be evaluated at a later date.

Mr. Christian Pascaud was born on February 8th 1960 in the village of Saint-Emilion.  On April 8th 1961, C.P recognized the applicant as his son even though it was public knowledge that W.A was the father.

On October 24th 2000, the applicant start legal proceeding to annul the recognizance of C.P and be recognized by the court as the son of W.A. On November 12th 2001, a court ordered DNA test confirmed that W.A was the father of the applicant with a chance of 99.999%. On March 7th 2002, W.A died.

On September 24th 2006, the appeal court of Bordeaux dismissed all the claims of the applicant. On October 17th 2007, the supreme court (Cour de cassation) rejected his appeal.

On April 15th 2008, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the refusal of the court to recognized him as a son of W.A was a violation of articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. He added that the lack of recognizance was also violation of article 1P1 and the lack of remedies a violation of articles 6-1 and 13. The applicant was represented by Me Bertrand Favreaux (Bordeaux).

On September 28th 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. On May 6th 2010, the applicant submitted his observations and requested a public hearing (see below). The request was denied.

On June 16th 2011, the Court found a violation of article 8 of the Convention on the ground that the interest of the applicant to be recognized as a son of W.A outweigh the common interest to legal certainty. It awarded €10,000 for legal fees and €10,000 for moral damages. The amount of material damages will be evaluated at a later date.

On July 1st 1992, a Belgium bank received from Nigeria a “contract”  to transfer $45 millions to the bank account of Mr. Dimitrios Coussios. It seems to have been an attempt for an advanced fee fraud (also called 419 fraud). Nevertheless, the bank informed the employer of Mr. Dimitri Coussios (the European Commission) of the contract. The district attorney of Brussels didn’t open any investigation.

On December 1st 1993, the European Commission fired the applicant for having formed a contract as a member of the European Commission. On June 17th 1994, the applicant sued the Belgium bank for damages, for disclosing the “contract” to his employer.  On November 2nd 2007, the supreme court rejected the appeal of the applicant, putting an end to a civil litigation of 13 years.

On April 22nd 2008, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that a civil litigation lasting 13 years was a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. He added that the civil appeal court of Mons considered him guilty of “fraud” was a violation of article 6-2, his dismissal was a violation of articles 6-3 and 8 and the lack of remedies a violation of article 13. The applicant is represented by Me Xavier Magnee (Brussels).

On May 3rd 2010, the application was communicated to the agent of the Belgium government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. On October 14th 2010, the applicant submitted his observations.

Ms. Martine Gardenal is a general practitioner practicing homeopathic medicine in Saint-Germain-en-Laye. She is not  a health care provider under contract with the national health insurance (Assurance Maladie).

On December 14th 2005, she is condemned by the regional medical council to 6 months suspension of delivering care to members of the national health insurance following a complain of the national health insurance. On March 21th 2007, the sentence is confirmed by the national medical council. On January 24th 2008, the administrative supreme court (conseil d’etat) rejected her appeal.

On July 11th 2008, the applicant submitted her case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the refusal by the plaintiff to communicate her transcripts of patients interrogation was a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. She added that the fact that judges of the national medical council belong to the national health insurance was another violation of article 6-1 and that her loss of revenues a violation of article 1 Protocole no 1. The applicant was represented by Me Laurent Hincker (Strasbourg).

On February 18th 2010, the Court found in judgment Baccichetti v. France (22584/06) a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention because the plaintiff didn’t communicate to the applicant a report submitted to the judges of the national medical council.

Surprisingly, on December 2nd 2010, Judge Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic) of the 5th section of the Court deemed the case Gardenal v. France (35040/08) inadmissible. The registrar of the Court also informed the applicant that no ground for the decision will be given and that it will destroy all archives regarding the case in 1 year.

On March 13th 2010, S.C is placed in police custody in Liege and interrogated by police officers on a murder charge. She is not allowed to receive any legal assistance from a lawyer. On March 14th 2010, the applicant is interrogated by an investigating judge of the tribunal without any legal assistance. Belgium law didn’t authorize suspect in custody to receive any legal assistance at this stage of the investigation.

On June 3rd 2010, the investigation chamber of the appeal court of Liege refused to suppress transcripts of these interrogations.

On December 3rd 2010, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that lack of legal assistance in custody was a violation of articles 5-1, 6-1 and 6-3 of the Convention. The applicant is represented by 3 lawyers of Defenso, Mr. Marc Neve, Ms. Sandra Berbuto and Ms. Estelle Berthe. On May 4th 2011, the application was communicated to the agent of the Belgium government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.

On September 19th 2006, Mr. Nicolas Vosgien was placed in detention pending investigation, by a judge of the tribunal of Nice. On December 2nd 2008, he was formally charged and subsequently detained awaiting trial.

On December 14th 2010, the instruction chamber of the appeal court of Aix-en-Provence found that the applicant was detained without any valid order since December 3rd 2010 and released immediately the applicant. On January 21th 2011, he was condemned to prison by the tribunal of Nice.

During the 4 years of detention pending investigation and trial, the judge of the tribunal of Nice and the instruction chamber of the appeal court of Aix-en-Provence motivated their order for detention by the fact that the applicant was..guilty.

On January 26th 2011, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the detention in local jail for more than 4 years before his trial was a violation of article 5-3 of the Convention and the motivation of the order of detention by his guiltiness was a violation of article 6-2. He is represented by Me Benoit David (Paris). On May 2nd 2011, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.

On June 19th 2008, a superintendent of police sent a notice to Mr. Damien Celice informing him that he was accused of speeding at 71km/h on June 14th 2008. The speed limit was 70km/h. The superintendent inviting him to plead guilty by paying a fine of €68. But the applicant chose to send a request for a court hearing along with the mandatory deposit of €68 (art.529-2 of the code of penal procedure). He also requested a copy of the photo taken by the speed radar. According to the applicant, his car was being repaired in an auto shop the day of the alleged speeding offense.

On September 3rd 2008, the superintendent of police informed him that he will not send him the photo, will not request a court hearing and that he will use the deposit of €68 to pay for the fine. On November 21st 2008, the ministry of interior informed the applicant that he has been found guilty of speeding by the superintendent of police following the payment of the €68 fine.

On February 26th 2009, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the mandatory deposit to have access to court was a violation of article 6-2 of the Convention and the denied access to court hearing was a violation of article 6-1. He is represented by Me Bertrand Perier (Paris). On May 25th 2010, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.

Newswire

RSS Judgments

RSS Decisions

RSS Cases communicated

Categories