You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Article 1 P1’ category.
On December 9th 1999, Mr. Thierry Ehrmann an artist opened a museum “the Organ” which offered residency for artists in the Abode of Chaos. The domain in the town Saint Romain au Mont d’Or, is the property of the real estate trust VHI owned by the artist. On December 9th 2004, the mayor of Saint Romain au Mont d’Or complained to the prosecutor of Lyon that there was drawings and slogans painted on the outside walls of the property.
On February 16th 2006 the tribunal of Lyon condemned the artist and the real estate trust VHI to fines of €20,000 and €100,000 each for infractions to the code of urbanism and ordered the walls to be cleared of drawings within 6 months. On September 13th 2006, the appeal court of Lyon condemned the artist to a fine of €200,000. On December 11th 2007, the supreme court (cour de cassation) annulled the ruling of the appeal court (case 06-87445). On December 16th 2008, the appeal court of Grenoble condemned the artist to a fine of €30,000, awarded damages of €1 to the town of Saint Romain au Mont d’Or and ordered the walls to be cleared of drawings within 9 months. On December 15th 2009, the supreme court rejected the appeal of the artist (case 09-80709).
On December 31st 2009, the applicants lodged their case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the fine of €30,000 and the order to clear the drawings of the outside walls were a violation of articles 10 and 1P1 of the Convention. He added that the ruling of the appeal court of Grenoble was a violation of article 7 of the Convention because pieces of art are by law exempted from the regulations of the code of urbanism (art.R421-1 6)). The applicants are represented by Me Thierry Moulin (Lyon).
On June 7th 2011, the Court found the application to be inadmissible on the ground that the condemnation of the artist was to “defend order” therefore “necessary in a democratic society“. The Court as the French courts refused to rule if the drawings on the outside walls of the domain are pieces of art. Surprisingly the Court invokes the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society not to protect the artist drawings but to justify the order to clear them in the name of..the conservation of “cultural heritage” . The Convention have not yet been signed by France.
On July 18th 2011, the 5th section of the Court modified the decision Ehrmann and VHI v. France by removing a statement indicating that observations of the government and the reply of the applicant were received by the Court. The head of registrar of the 5th section Claudia Westerdiek didn’t answer our email for comment. According to the applicant (see below his video), he never received the observation from the French government and never submitted any. He announced his intention to file soon another application with the Court.
From June 13th 1997 to May 30th 1998, some Renault employees on strike occupied one of the branch of the company in Beziers.
On June 20th 1997 and June 27th 1997 Renault obtained judge orders to expel the strikers. On August 1st 1997, Renault sold the branch to Bda whose main shareholder is Sofiran. On August 29th 1997 and on January 27th 1998, Bda obtained again judge orders to expel the strikers. But the local police constantly refused to comply with any of the judge orders.
On October 11th 1999, Bda and Sofiran filed at the administrative tribunal of Montpellier, a lawsuit to obtain damages following the refusals of the local police to execute the judge orders. On March 29th 2005, the tribunal rejected their claim. On February 27th 2007, the administrative appeal court of Marseilles confirmed the ruling (05MA01397, 05MA01426). On May 18th 2009, the administrative supreme court (conseil d’etat) rejected the appeals of the applicants (305135, 302090).
On November 17th 2009, the applicants lodged their case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that refusal of the police to comply with the judge orders were a violation of articles 6-1 and 1P1 of the Convention. The applicants are represented by Me Sandrine Serpentier-Linares (Montpellier).
On June 22th 2011, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. Me Sandrine Serpentier-Linares (Montpellier) communicated us the following comments on the questions of the Court :
On January 1st 1963, the Muslims in Algeria lost automatically their French citizenship (art.2 of executive order 1962-825) including the hundreds of thousands Muslims veterans of the French army. At the same date, the French administration set the pensions of the Muslim veterans, newly citizens of Algeria (art.71-I of law 1959-1454) at the rate of July 3rd 1962, date of independence of Algeria.
Following the administrative supreme court ruling of November 30th 2001 (case D. 212179) which found a violation of articles 1P1 and 14 of the Convention, the French government introduced a new discriminatory pension based on “residence at the time of the first allowance of pension” by article 68 of the law 2002-1576.
Ms. Achour is a widow of a Muslim veteran of the French army (17 years of service). On November 16th 1985, she was denied a military pension following the death of her husband on the basis of her “citizenship“. On December 22nd 2003, she obtained a pension lower than the regular one received by the widows of “French” veterans. On June 16th 2006, the administration denied her the right to receive the regular pension. She challenged the decision at the administrative tribunal of Poitiers who rejected her complain on December 27th 2007. She was denied legal aid at the administrative tribunal of Poitiers and at the administrative supreme court level on the ground that her claim was frivolous. On April 22th 2009, the applicant lodged her case to the Court arguing that the lower pension based on citizenship was a violation of articles 1P1 and 14 of the Convention.
Ms. Ben Ahmed is also a widow of a Muslim veteran of the French army (15 years of service). On May 25th 2005, the administration refused to compensate her for the lower pension that her husband received and that she received following his death. On September 20th 2007, the administrative tribunal of Nantes rejected her complain. Her appeal was transferred illegally by the administrative appeal court of Nantes to the administrative supreme court. The administrative supreme court denied her legal aid and on October 21st 2008 rejected her appeal. On January 9th 2009, the applicant lodged her case to the Court arguing that the lower pension based on citizenship was a violation of articles 1P1 and 14 of the Convention. She added that the proceeding in the administrative justice system were in violation of articles 6 and 13 of the Convention (see below).
Mr. Chikr is a Muslim veteran of the French army (15 years of service). In 2006, he was receiving a monthly pension of €70 (15 times lower than the regular one) and annual allowance of €40. On April 24th and June 16th 2006. the administration refused to grant him a regular pension. He was denied legal aid at the administrative tribunals of Dijon and Poitiers and his claims were rejected by the administrative tribunals. On July 31st 2008, the administrative supreme court denied him legal aid. On November 7th 2008, the applicant lodged his case to the Court arguing that the lower pension based on citizenship was a violation of articles 1P1 and 14 of the Convention.
Ms. Kouri is a widow of a Muslim veteran of the French army (15 years of service). In 2003, she was receiving a monthly military pension of €12,22. On February 25th 2005, the administrative tribunal of Poitiers found that she was only eligible for a limited revision of her pension with effect from January 1st 1999. She was asking for revision of her pension and her husband one from September 1st 1962. On December 20th 2006, the administrative supreme court rejected her appeal. On July 18th 2007, the applicant lodged his case to the Court arguing that the lower pension based on citizenship was a violation of articles 1P1 and 14 of the Convention.
On March 2nd 2010, case Achour (22276/09). case Ben Ahmed (4301/09), case Chikr (55073/08) and case Kouri v. France (31721/07) were communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. Ms. Achour, Mr. Chikr and Ms.Kouri were represented by Me Vincent Schneegans (Marseille). Ms. Ben Ahmed was represented by Me Andre Thalamas (Toulouse).
On May 28th 2010, the agency constitutional council found unconstitutional (decision 2010-1) the laws (1981-734, 2002-1576 and 2006-1666) regarding the lower pensions for veterans of the French army.
From January 1st 2011, any veteran with a lower pension can request the benefit of a regular pension under the article 211 of the law 2010-1657.
On March 23rd 2011, A committee of 3 judges of the Court decided to strike out the 4 cases after receiving promise from the French government that Ms. Achour will receive €25,000, Ms. Ben Ahmed €65,000, Mr. Chikr €95,000 and Ms. Kouri €70,000. But the French government didn’t acknowledge any violation of the Convention. The committee considered no public interest in pursuing the examination of the 4 cases.
In Algeria, 47,500 Muslims veterans and 11,000 widows of Muslims veterans might disagree with the view of the committee of the Court composed of judges Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefevre (Monaco) and Ann Power (Ireland).
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.
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 April 29th 1999, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found in judgment Chassagnou and others v. France (25088/94 ; 28331/95 ; 28443/95) a violation of articles 1 of protocol 1 and article 11 in conjunction with article 14 of the Convention because the applicants were forced to belong to a hunting association (ACCA) and to let armed hunters and hunting dogs from this association enter their land.
The Court ruled a violation of article 14 because large land owners could be exempt to belong to the ACCA of their county and in the county with no ACCA, any landowner could refuse armed hunters to enter his property.
On April 25th 2005, the Committee of Ministers adopted resolution (2005)26 after being informed by the agent of the French Republic that the new article L422-10 of the code of environment will prevent new violation of the Convention as a general measure and satisfy the applicants as an individual measure.
On August 9th 2001, Ms. Simone Lasgrezas who was an applicant in judgment Chassagnou and others v. France (25088/94), requested to withdraw from the ACCA. On October 18th 2001, she was informed by the prefect that she won’t be authorized to withdraw from the ACCA before March 8th 2005 under article L422-18 of the code of environment. On October 31th 2002, the administrative tribunal of Bordeaux rejected her appeal. On June 27th 2006, the administrative appeal court of Bordeaux confirmed the judgment. On November 9th 2007, she lost her appeal (296858) to the administrative supreme court (conseil d’état).
On May 29th 2008, N.G.O ASPAS and the applicant filed an application with the E.C.H.R arguing a violation of article 1 of protocol 1, article 11 in conjunction with article 14 under the same ground as in 1994. On September 23th 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered with 16 weeks. On January 26th 2010, the agent submitted his answers to which the applicants answered (see below). ASPAS and the applicant are advised by Me Gregory Delhomme (Montelimar).
This application raised serious concern not only about the respect by France of article 46-1 of the Convention in the execution of judgment Chassagnou and others v. France but also on the ability of the department for the execution of judgments to verify the truthfulness of statement made by the agent of the French Republic to the Committee of Ministers.
On September 22th 2011, the Court found no violation of article 1P1, 11, 14 of the Convention on the ground the applicant could have withdraw her property from the ACCA…. if she had applied earlier in the year.
On May 4th and 14th 1971, the applicants sold a part of their land of the island of Porquerolles to the French Republic at a highly discounted price. The deed of sale contained a clause authorizing the applicants to extend buildings or build new ones on their remaining land. At that time, Ms. Le Ber wished to build balneotherapy facilities for disabled.
But on 1976 and on 1978, the applicants were denied any permit to build. They filed their cases with the administrative tribunal. After losing their cases in 1981 and 1983, they appealed to the administrative supreme court (conseil d’etat) but their appeals failed in 1984 and 1989 (53591), on the ground that they had to obtain damages from the judicial court.
In 1994 and 1995, the applicants filed their cases to the tribunal of Toulon. After losing their cases in 1999 and 2000, they appealed to the court of Aix-en-Provence but their appeal failed in 2005. They both appealed to the supreme court (cour de cassation). Their appeals failed on December 30th 2006 (05-18538) almost 30 years after the start of their litigation before French courts.
On April 24th 2007 and June 5th 2007, the applicants filed two applications (see below) with the E.C.H.R arguing that the refusal of building permit was a violation of article 1 of protocol no 1 of the Convention. On June 12th 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French Republic with questions to be answered before 16 weeks. Ms. Le Ber is represented by Me Laurent Coutelier (Toulon). The family Richet is represented by Me Pierre Brelier (Paris).
On November 18th 2010, the Court found a violation of article 1 of the protocol no 1 of the Convention. The court ordered France to pay €803,000 of damages to Ms. Le Ber and €712,000 of damages to the family Richet. No legal fees reimbursement were awarded.