You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Article 6-1’ category.
At an unspecified date in 1999, the prosecutor of the district of Zürich interrogated several agents of the embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPR Korea) in Zürich. Mr. Meier and his lawyer were present during the questionings.
On February 3rd 2004, the applicant was charged with defrauding the embassy of DPR Korea. On October 7th 2004, he was condemned by the tribunal of Zürich to 27 months in jail. His conviction was based on the statements of the staff of the embassy to the prosecutor. These prosecution witnesses were absent at the hearing of the tribunal of Zürich.
On November 25th 2005, the superior court confirmed the conviction and the sentence. The prosecution witnesses were also absent at the hearing of the superior court. On January 30th 2007, the supreme court of the district of Zürich dismissed his appeal. On September 3rd 2007, his appeal (6B 51/2007) was rejected by the Swiss supreme court (Federal Tribunal) .
On February 28th 2008, he filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that to admit testimonies of Korean embassy staff is a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. He argued that the testimonies of the agents, who enjoy diplomatic immunity (art.31-1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) were inadmissible because these agents couldn’t be prosecuted for false testimony (art.307 of the penal code).
On June 18th 2013, the majority of the 2nd section of the Court ruled that his application was inadmissible on the ground that “the Court considers it is not necessary to answer the question of the admissibility of the testimonies of diplomatic agents” (54) absent at both hearings. Surprisingly, the section added that the government of DPR Korea may waive the immunity of its diplomatic agents to be prosecuted for false testimony in Switzerland, “if needed for a fair trial” (61).
The applicant was represented by Me Hugo Camenzind (Switzerland) who didn’t answer our request for comments.
On April 19th 2010 at 12:15pm, Ms. Hoyos was placed in police custody for 24 hours in Monaco (art.60-4 of the code of penal procedure) under the control of the prosecutor general (art.60-1, 60-3). At 12:30pm, she requested to speak with a lawyer (art.60-9). Despite her request she was interrogated until her bar appointed lawyer arrived. After meeting with her lawyer, she was subject to a body search (art.60-2) and had her bag searched without her lawyer present. Then, she was further interrogated without any legal assistance.
On April 20th 2010 at 12:15pm, she was informed that a 24h warrant of further detention was granted at 11:40am by a judge at the request of the prosecutor general (art.60-4). After meeting with her counsel, she was again interrogated without any legal assistance.
On April 21st 2010 at 11:00am, she was interrogated without her lawyer by the prosecutor general (art.261) who issued an “arrest warrant” for a 4 month pretrial detention (art.162). Then, she was interrogated without her lawyer by an investigative judge (art.166).
On August 25th 2010, Me Regis Bergonzi filed a motion to dismiss to the investigative judge. On September 1st 2010, the investigative judge ruled that he was not authorized by law to rule on the lawfulness of the police custody (art.209). On September 20th 2010, the appeal court confirmed the ruling. On March 30th 2011, the supreme court (cour de revision) refused to rule on the appeal of the Ms. Hoyos.
On July 23rd 2011, she filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the control of the police custody by the prosecutor general, and the fact that she was not brought before a judge were violations of article 5-3 of the Convention. She added that the absence of legal assistance during interrogations, of notice of the right to remain silent, the lack of access of her lawyer to her police file, and the purchase of her prosecution file, were violations of articles 6-1 and 6-3 of the Convention. Furthermore, according to her, the refusal of the supreme court to rule was a violation of article 6-1.
On January 23rd 2012, the application was communicated to the representative of Monaco with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. The applicant is represented by Me Regis Bergonzi (Monaco).
On August 25th 2000, Ms. Horvath, an Hungarian citizen was interrogated in Dutch and English by Dutch speaking police officers of the Ghent police without the assistance of a sworn interpreter (art.47 bis of the code of criminal instruction). On March 27th 2001, she received a summon in Dutch from the prosecutor of the king of the Belgians.
On February 14th 2002, she was condemned in absentia by the tribunal of Ghent. On November 9th 2004, the court of appeal of Ghent condemned her in absentia.
On March 7th 2005, she was assisted by a Hungarian/Dutch interpreter to give her statement to the court during an appeal hearing (art.31 law June 15th 1935). It is unknown if the she was assisted by the interpreter during her meetings with her lawyer and if the key prosecution files and judgments were translated in Hungarian. On January 17th 2006, the court of appeal of Ghent found her guilty and sentenced her to the same penalty as the judgment of the tribunal of Gent. On September 18th 2006, her appeal to the supreme court (Cour de cassation) was rejected (case no P060298N).
On January 26th 2007, Ms. Horvath filed an application with the ECHR on the ground that she was not “informed promptly, in a language which she understood and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her” in violation of article 6-1-a) of the Convention. She added that she was interrogated by police officers without an interpreter in violation of article 6-1-e) of the Convention.
On January 24th 2012, Judges Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Jočienė (Lithuania), Karakaş (Turkey), Popović (Serbia), Raimondi (Italy), Sajó (Hungary), and Tulkens (Belgium) ruled unanimously her application inadmissible. They found that Ms. Horvath was informed “of the nature and cause of the accusation against her” because she submitted a brief in Dutch to the appeal court of Ghent and didn’t request during the appeal hearing for a translation in Hungarian of the summon.
The 7 Judges of the 2nd section also concluded that the allegation of violation of article 6-1-e) was inadmissible (art.35-1 of the Convention) on the ground that the applicant didn’t complain to the Belgium supreme court about the lack of interpreter during police interrogation. But according to the judgment of the supreme court (case no P060298N 7.8.9), the applicant explicitly raised this issue. Interestingly, the same section of the Court found an allegation of violation of article 6-1-e) admissible even though the applicant didn’t complain to the Turkish supreme court about the lack of interpreter during police interrogation (Judgment Şaman v. Turkey (35292/05) .25).
On October 26th 2010, the directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings was published. It establishes for suspect or accused persons, the right to free interpretation during police interrogation (art. 2.1), meetings with lawyer (art. 2.2) and hearings (art.2.1). It also confers them the right to free translation of any detention decision, any charge or indictment, any judgment (art.3.2) and other “essentials documents” (art.3.1) as well as the right to an effective remedy to challenge refusal to provide free translation (art.2.5) or free interpretation (art.3.5).
The Kingdom of Belgium have to bring into force the law necessary to comply with this directive by 27 October 2013 (art.9).
On August 28th 2001, the antitrust commission (Conseil de la concurrence) opened an investigation on the market of mobile network operators in France. On May 14th 2004, a report made by the consumer protection agency of the ministry of economy and finance (DGCCRF) was transmitted to the antitrust commission. On August 24th 2005, an article in the French weekly Canard Enchaine revealed some information contained in the report.
On November 30th 2005, the antitrust commission condemned the mobile network operator Bouygues Telecom to a fine of €58 millions (decision 05-D-65) for violations of article L.420-1 of the code of commerce. On December 12th 2006, the appeal court of Paris rejected the appeal of Bouygues Telecom (decision 2006/00048) after receiving briefs from the ministry of economy and finance and the antitrust commission. On June 29th 2007, the appeal of Bouygues Telecom to the supreme court (Cour de cassation) failed (case 07-10303).
On December 20th 2007, Bouygues Telecom filed an application with the ECHR arguing that the lack of public hearing before the antitrust commission gave its decision, the submission of briefs by the ministry of economy and finance, and the antitrust commission during the appeal trial were violations of article 6-1 of the Convention. The applicant added that the leaking of the report to the press was a violation of article 6-2. On January 17th 2012, the application was communicated to the agent of the French Republic with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. The applicant is represented by Me Alain Benabent (Paris).
On n/a, Ms. Fernandez was informed by a notice of December 15th 2006 that she was suspected of speeding at n/a on the road n/a in n/a on September 13th 2006 at n/a (art. R413-14 of the road code).
On n/a, she had to deposit €180 to get her non-guilty plea registered by the prosecutor (art.530 of the code of penal procedure).
On January 7th 2008, the applicant appeared in court without being able to get access to the prosecution file of evidence of her case. She was not assisted by a lawyer and wasn’t informed when the judgment will be given (art.462 of the code of penal procedure). On n/a, the judge found her guilty of n/a and condemned her to a fine of €135, to administrative cost of €22. Following the condemnation, she automatically lost 1 point out of her 12 points driving license.
On February 18th 2008, she filed an appeal to the supreme court (Cour de cassation) against the judgement. On May 3rd 2010, she was informed that on September 17th 2008 the supreme court ruled her appeal inadmissible (art.605 of the code of penal procedure) for a violation of article 568 of the code of penal.
On October 29th 2010, she filed an application to the ECHR on the ground that the lack of access to the prosecution file of evidence was a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. She added that the lack of formal notification of the judgment of Montpellier was a violation of article 6-1 and 13, and that the requirement to file in person her appeal to the supreme court, was a violation of article 6,13 and 14 of the Convention. She stated that the prosecutor was not required to file in person his appeal.
On January 17th 2012, the 5th section of the Court ruled her application inadmissible on the surprising ground that because the administrative judge Fernandez was condemned to a fine of €135, “the applicant has not suffered significant disadvantage regarding her right to a fair trial” (art.35-3-b) of the Convention).
On October 6th 2011, the 5th section of the Court ruled in judgment Wagner v. Luxembourg (43490/08) that the allegation of violation of article 6-1 during proceedings following which the applicant lost 4 points out of his 12 points driving license, was admissible (§25).
On March 18th 1997, the Court found in judgment Foucher v. France (22209/93) that the lack of access of the accused to the prosecution file of evidence was a violation of article 6-1 and 6-3 of the Convention. In this case, Mr. Foucher was condemned to a fine of €457 for insults.
On May 6th 2008, Greenpeace France challenged the legality of the executive order 2008-209 at the administrative supreme court (Conseil d’etat). The executive order was taken by the French prime minister after receiving secret legal advice from unknown staff of Conseil d’etat, secret report from ministry of ecology and opinion 2008-AV-0054 of French Authority of Nuclear Safety (ASN). On July 9th 2009*, the private company AREVA owned, funded and controlled by the French Republic, submitted a secret brief “amicus curiae“*. On July 10th 2009, an hearing was organized on the case (no 315980) during when the “public adviser” submitted a secret brief*. After the hearing, the ministry of ecology submitted a secret brief*.
On July 28th 2009, Greenpeace France was informed that a groundless decision was taken not to rule on the case until further notice. On March 22nd 2010*, a secret hearing was organized where witnesses didn’t testify under oath (art.R623-5 of the code of administrative justice). On May 21st 2010*, a hearing was organized and a secret brief* was submitted by the “public adviser“. On June 30th 2010, unnamed administrative judges released a decision dismissing the legal challenge of Greenpeace.
On September 22nd 2010, Greenpeace France filed an application with the ECHR (see below) arguing that the groundless decision not to rule, the testifying of witnesses who didn’t take the oath, the secrecy of the hearing of March 22nd 2010, the lacking of the transcript of the secret hearing, the refusal to communicate to Greenpeace France the 2 secret briefs of the “public adviser” were a violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. On December 13th 2011, Judge Villiger (Liechtenstein), Judge Jungwiert (Czech Republic) and Judge Yudkivska (Ukraine) ruled the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded (art.35-3-a) on the ground that Greenpeace France was acting “to protect the rights of citizens to live in an healthy environment” rather than its own rights. Greenpeace France was represented by Me Alexandre Faro (Paris).
*the date of the hearings and the existence of the secret briefs was not revealed in the Conseil d’Etat decision of the June 30th 2010 but only in the ECHR application of Greenpeace France.
On September 12th 1998 around 2pm, Mr. Alain Dubois was found dead in a public park near the railway station of Pau. He had suffered serious head injuries and multiple trauma.
The police officers in charge of the investigation didn’t treat the area as a scene of crime. They didn’t collect and safeguard any evidence on the scene and on the body. They didn’t document postmortem changes to establish the location of injury and the time and place of death. No documentation of the social, medical and mental health history of the decedent was made. The police officers didn’t launch a witness appeal. Some pictures of the body were taken and a quick visual examination was made by a family doctor.
Around 6pm, a police officer notified the next of kin of the death of Mr. Dubois. He added that the police investigation on cause of death (art.74 of the code of penal procedure) concluded that his death was a suicide. On September 15th 1998, the prosecutor Dreno closed the investigation without ordering an autopsy, and authorized the release of the body for burial. On September 18th 1998, the funeral took place.
On September 24th 1998, the family of the decedent pressed charges for murder and requested an autopsy. It was the start of a 8 years legal battle which cost the family €25,000. They had to pay a large deposit and hire several lawyers to request that the police conduct a second investigation and to have them perform essential investigative work (DNA testing, hair analysis, autopsy, blood test, reenactment, interrogation of witnesses). Several of their requests were denied (witness appeal, interrogation of witnesses). On August 9th 2006, the investigative judge decided to close the investigation. On October 24th 2006, the appeal court of Pau confirmed his decision. On May 9th 2007, the supreme court (Cour de cassation) rejected the appeal of the family without holding any hearing (art. 567-1-1 of the code of penal procedure).
On November 17th 2007, the family filed an application with the ECHR (see below) arguing that the authorities didn’t act of their own motion for the the second investigation. The applicants added that the 8 years investigation suffered considerable delays and was conducted only to confirm the findings of “suicide” of the first investigation. They alleged a violation of articles 2, 6-1 and 13 of the Convention. The application was not communicated by the Court to the agent of the French Republic.
On July 7th 2011, the grand chamber of the Court stated again in its judgment Al-Skeini and others v. UK (55721/07) : “165. What form of investigation will achieve the purposes of Article 2 may vary (..). However, (..), the authorities must act of their own motion (..). They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next-of-kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures (..) 166. (..) The authorities must take the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye-witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy (..).
On November 15th 2011, the Judges of the 5th section found the application inadmissible on the ground that several requests of the family “were granted within reasonable time” in the 2nd investigation. They added that the 2nd investigation was effective. The Judges didn’t rule on the effectiveness of the first investigation and on the fact that the 2nd investigation was at the initiative of the next of kin.
In autumn 1977, Ms. Agnes Roux disappeared. On August 13th 1983, Mr. Maurice Agnelet was suspected of her “murder” by an investigative judge, following the criminal complain of the mother of Ms. Agnes Roux. On April 23th 1986, the investigation chamber of the appeal court of Aix en Provence, confirmed the decision of the investigative judge to close the investigation without charging any suspect. On February 1st 1988, the supreme court (Cour de cassation) rejected the appeal of the mother of Ms. Agnes Roux (case 86-92512).
On December 20th 2000, Mr. Maurice Agnelet was again suspected of her “murder” by another investigative judge. On October 26th 2005, he was charged with “murder” by the investigation chamber. On December 20th 2006, he was acquitted by the criminal court of Nice. But the prosecutor appealed the acquittal (art.380-2 of the code of penal procedure). On October 11th 2007, he was found guilty of “murder” by the criminal court of Aix en Provence and sentenced to 20 years in prison. On October 15th 2008, the supreme court rejected his appeal (case 07-87723).
On December 11th 2008, Mr. Maurice Agnelet filed an application to the ECHR (see below) on the ground that the 20 years investigation and the prosecution after the expiry of the statute of limitation were both in violation of articles 6-1, 6-2 and 13 that the formal charge of October 26th 2005 didn’t contain in detail the nature and cause of the accusation of “murder” (where?, when?, how?) in violation of article 6-3-a) and the 2 questions of the head judge to the jury on a new charge of “complicity to commit murder” on the last day of the trial was another violation of article 6-3-a).
He added that the ruling of the 3 judges of the criminal court on October 9th 2007 which stated that he “lied“, was a violation of article 6-1, that the head judge refused to record the closing argument of the prosecutor on October 9th 2007 in violation of article 6-1, that the head judge had printed a decision where the jury found him guilty before its deliberation in violation of article 6-1 and that the criminal court judgment was groundless in regards to his guilt and to the length of his sentence in violation of article 6-1. On December 13th 2010 and August 17th 2011, the applicant submitted two additional briefs (brief 1, brief 2). The applicant is represented by Me Francois Saint-Pierre (Lyon/Paris).
On September 27th 2011, the 5th section of the Court ruled that the application was only admissible for the lack of ground of the criminal judgment, and communicated the application to the agent of French Republic with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. Surprisingly, the 5th section found that the formal charge of October 26th 2005 was not in violation of article 6-3-a) on the ground that it was a “93 pages brief” that detailed the “attitude of the defendant with the family” of Ms. Agnes Roux.
On April 24th 2001, Mr. Francois Mourmand is arrested and detained pending the Outreau investigation, on the request of the investigative judge Burgaud. In July 2001, he filed a complain for false allegation. On June 9th 2002, he was found dead in his cell of the jail of Douai. The Outreau investigation resulted in a unprecedented miscarriage of justice. Finally, criminal courts acquitted 13 defendants in 2004 and 2005.
On June 11th 2002, an investigation on the cause of the death was opened by an investigative judge. According to the toxicology tests, his death was caused by psychiatric medications. Medical experts found that psychiatric medications were prescribed in unusually high levels and no medical record was found to justify these levels. On January 9th 2007, the sister of the deceased, Ms. Lydia Mourmand filed a complain for “involuntary manslaughter” to the investigative judge. On March 4th 2011, the chamber of investigation of the appeal court of Douai confirmed the decision of the investigative judge to close the case without charging any suspect.
On January 23rd 2007, Ms. Lydia Mourmand and her father filed an application to the ECHR on the ground that the life of Mr. Francois Mourmand in jail was not protected and the investigation on the cause of his death was too slow, both violation of article 2 of the Convention. They added the conditions of his detention and the lack of proper healthcare in jail were a violation of article 3, his detention pending investigation for more than 13 months a violation of article 5, the lack of investigation following his complain a violation of article 6-1, the discrimination for belonging to the traveller community a violation of article 14 and lack of remedy on these violations a violation of article 13. On November 9th 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French Republic.
On August 30th 2011, the 5th section of the Court strike out the application on the ground that the French Republic offered a settlement of €20,000 to the applicants who accepted it. The French Republic didn’t recognize any violation of the Convention. On November 3rd 2011, the applicant deplored to have sign the settlement because she is “semi-illiterate“.
On January 18th 2006, the applicant was interviewed by congressmen during the congressional inquiry into the Outreau investigation.
On March 10th 1999, Mr Portmann was arrested in a house in Urnäsch as a suspect in an investigation on a bank robbery. Unnamed Swiss police officers handcuffed his hands in his back, shackled his feet, and placed a hood on his entire head.
The suspect was transported, handcuffed, shackled and hooded to the police station of Herisau where he was interrogated in the same condition by an investigative judge. He exercised his right to remain silent during the interrogation and the investigative judge ordered his detention. Then masked police officers removed his hood and requested him to sign a transcript of the interrogation. Upon his refusal, they placed the hood again on his head. He was detained in a basement cell before being transported to the police station of Trugen. There police officers removed his handcuff, shackle and hood.
On April 4th 2006, the applicant press charges by filing a complain to an investigative judge. On May 3rd 2006, the investigative judge closed the investigation on the ground that hooding was “standard police protocol” for suspects considered “dangerous” by police. No witness were interviewed in the investigation. On July 24th 2006, the prosecutor rejected the appeal of the applicant on the ground that hooding was necessary to keep “the anonymity of the police officers“. He refused to examine the allegation of violation of article 3 of the Convention and to award legal aid to the applicant.
On September 8th 2006, the federal tribunal (case 1P.469/2006) rejected his appeal on the ground that hooding was not “disproportionate” and denied him legal aid.
On September 19th 2006, Mr. Portmann filed pro se an application to the ECHR on the ground that the condition of his arrest and his detention were a violation of article 3. He added that lack of access to a tribunal and the lack of effective remedy were both a violation of articles 6-1 and 13. On November 3rd 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the Swiss government.
On October 11th 2011, Judge Jočienė (Lithuania), Judge Björgvinsson (Iceland), Judge Malinverni (Switzerland), Judge Sajó (Hungary), Judge Karakaş (Turkey) and Judge Tulkens (Belgium) of the Court found no violation of article 3 on the surprising grounds that “the applicant could breathe through the hood“, “that he didn’t try to remove it” and that a “police officer was watching him almost at all time“.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal) found a violation of article 3 of the Convention based on the case-law of human rights courts and bodies (ECHR, CIDH, CAT, CPT, CCPR), on findings of the ICRC, ICRT and U.N special rapporteur on torture and on the facts of the case. He concluded that the hooding of the applicant was “unlawful“, “disproportionate”, “useless“, “objectively degrading” and an “inhumane and degrading treatment“.
In 2000, it was revealed by a whistle-blower that disabled women were unlawfully (art.16-3 of the civil code) sterilized by force from 1995 to 1998 in the city of Sens. On September 11th 2000, an advocacy group ADHY (Association de Défense des Handicapés de l’Yonne) pressed criminal charges by filing a complain to an investigative judge of the tribunal of Sens for “aggravated mutilation” (art.222-10 of the penal code) and “obstruction of justice” (art.434-1 of the penal code). On October 18th 2000, the prosecutor of the Republic also filed a complain to the investigative judge.
On October 20th 2000, the investigative judge refused to allow the complain of the ADHY. On July 2th 2001, the investigation chamber of the appeal court of Paris confirmed the decision. On October 9th 2002 the supreme court (Cour de cassation) rejected the appeal of the ADHY (case 01-88831). Some disabled citizens who were sterilized by force joined the proceedings.
On April 3rd 2006, the investigative judge Mickaël Ghir closed the criminal investigation with no charge brought against the suspects. On March 12th 2007, the investigation chamber of the appeal court of Paris confirmed the decision on the ground that “it is extremely difficult for disabled citizens to parent“. On June 10th 2008, the supreme court found the appeal of the plaintiffs inadmissible (case 07-86623) on the ground that a joint-appeal was not made by the prosecutor (art.575 of the code of penal procedure).
On December 10th 2008, 5 disabled women filed an application to the ECHR on the ground that the lack of legal assistance provided to them during the investigation and the inadmissibility of their appeal to the supreme court were both a violation of article 6-1. They added that their forced sterilizations were a violation of articles 3, 8, 12 in conjunction with article 14. On February 22th 2011, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. The applicant is represented by Me Didier Seban (Paris).
On August 16th 2011, the European group of national Human Rights institutions submitted to the Court a brief amicus curiae .
On January 1st 2001, Mr. A. was wounded in an exchange of fire in the French island of la Reunion. On March 17th 2006, Mr. David Fraumens was considered a suspect in the investigation. On March 27th 2007, the applicant was charged with “attempted murder” (art.121-4 and 221-1 of the penal code). On December 7th 2007, the criminal court of Saint-Denis de la Reunion acquitted the applicant. The prosecutor general appealed the judgment of acquittal (art.380-2 of the code of penal procedure).
On October 3rd 2008, the criminal court of Saint-Denis de la Reunion found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 30 years in prison. On December 9th 2009, the French supreme court (Cour de cassation) rejected his appeal (case 08-87172).
On May 15th 2009, Mr. David Fraumens filed an application to the ECHR (see below) on the ground that the criminal court judgment was groundless in regard to his guilt and to the length of his sentence, in violation of article 6-1 of the Convention. On August 25th 2011, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks. The applicant is represented by Me Luc Misson (Liege).
On July 28th 2011, Mr. G B.S a legal resident of Italy from India was arrested in the train station of Bordeaux while purchasing a train ticket to Italy. He was detained in police custody on the suspicion of being illegal in France (article L621-2 of the code of migration and asylum). On July 29th 2011, he was placed in the immigration detention facility of Bordeaux awaiting his deportation to Italy.
On July 30th 2011 at 3:45pm, he submitted an “habeas corpus” motion to be immediately release (article R552-17 of the code of migration and asylum) on the ground that his arrest and detention in police custody were illegal following the ECJ judgment El Dridi (C-61/11) on April 28th 2011.
On July 30th 2011 at 6:12pm, Judge Perlant of the tribunal of Bordeaux ordered the police to release Mr. G B.S on the ground that his detention in police custody was illegal. The order was communicated immediately to the district attorney of Bordeaux and the release should have occurred on July 31th 2011 at 12:12am (article L552-6 of the code of migration and asylum). But the police officers of the immigration detention center refused to release Mr. G B.S. On August 1st 2011, Mr. G B.S was forcibly removed to Italy.
On August 4th 2011, Me Emmanuel Barast (Bordeaux) filed a criminal complain for “illegal arrest” (articles 432-4, 432-5 of the penal code) at the district attorney office of Bordeaux. The main suspects seems to be the police officer who placed Mr. G B.S in police custody and in the immigration detention center, the police chief of the detention center and the prosecutor Laplaud (Bordeaux) who controls the detention.
Upon request, Me Emmanuel Barast didn’t inform us why he didn’t summons the 4 main suspects to the misdemeanor court (article 392 of the code of penal procedure) and seek damages in a civil lawsuit.
According to Ms. Petersell of the NGO Cimade, the police officers are still detaining illegally suspects of immigration violation in police custody.
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 September 26th 1994, Ms. Agnes Klouvi filed a complain for rape and sexual assault. She alleged that she was raped and molested several times from 1992 to 1994 by her ex-boss T.. On January 1998, an investigating judge of the tribunal of Paris refused to charge T. and closed the investigation.
On October 21th 1999, she was condemned to 6 months suspended prison sentence for “false accusation” (art.226-10 of the penal code) by the tribunal of Paris and to pay €12,195 of damages and €3,048 of legal cost to T. On December 5th 2001, the appeal court of Paris confirmed the ruling. On March 25th 2003, the supreme court (Cour de cassation) rejected her appeal (02-80569).
On September 18th 2003, the applicant lodged her case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that article 226-10 of the penal code forced judges to condemn for “false accusation” all the plaintiffs whose allegations didn’t result in the suspect being charged, in violation of articles 6-1 and 6-2 of the Convention.
On February 2nd 2007, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government.
On June 30th 2011, the Court found a violation of articles 6-1 and 6-2 of the Convention on the ground that the article 226-10 of the penal code didn’t allow judges to examine the allegation of the plaintiff but forced them to consider the allegation as false and malicious and to condemn the plaintiff for “false accusation” if no charge were brought against the suspect. The applicant was represented by Me Christophe Pettiti (Paris). The Court awarded her €8,000 for moral damages and €4,832 for legal fees.
Under article 626-1 of the code of penal procedure, the applicant can now request a new trial at an appeal court from a special commission of the supreme court, in order to redress the violations of article 6 found by the European Court of Human Rights.
On July 11th 2010, article 226-10 of the penal code was slightly modified by article 16 of law 2010-769. But according to Me Christophe Pettiti the change is not fully satisfying for plaintiffs in sexual crime cases. He added that it is now the responsibility of French judges to take into account judgment Klouvi v. France (30754/03) when ruling on accusations of “false accusation”.
On April 7th 2008, Mr. Mahmoud Philippe El Shennawy was transferred to the notorious jail of Pau. He was placed in solitary confinement and was guarded by masked prison guards of the ERIS unit.
From April 9th to April 18th 2008, the applicant accused of armed robbery, appeared at the criminal court of Pau. Each day of court appearance, the applicant was strip searched naked for up to 8 times and asked by masked guards of the ERIS to bend over and/or squat. When the applicant was bending over and/or squatting, the ERIS guards were doing a visual inspection of his anus. These acts were videotaped by one of the guard. On April 11th 2008, the applicant refused to squat. Nevertheless the masked guards coerced him to squat naked. Later in the day, they forcibly removed his clothes, coerced him to squat naked and forced him to appear in court.
On April 11th 2008, the judge presiding the criminal court ruled that he couldn’t order the ERIS guards to stop these acts. On April 15th 2008, the judge of the administrative tribunal of Pau ruled that only the judges of the criminal court of Pau could order the ERIS guards to stop. On November 14th 2008, the administrative supreme court annulled the ruling of the administrative tribunal of Pau (case 315622) but refused to rule on the violation of article 3 of the Convention.
On October 15th 2008, the applicant submitted his case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the multiple strip searches, the bending over, the coerced squatting, the visual inspection of his anus and the videotaping of these acts were violations of articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. He added that the lack of effective remedy was a violation of article 13 and also that these acts prevented him to defend himself during the trial in violation of articles 6-1 and 6-3. On June 16th 2009, the application was communicated to the agent of the French government with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.
On January 20th 2011, the Court found a violation of article 3 of the Convention on the ground that the multiple strip searches, the bending over, the forced squatting. and their videotaping by masked guards were overall a degrading treatment. The Court also found that the applicant didn’t have any effective remedy to obtain redress, in violation of article 13 but forgot to examine the allegations of violations of articles 6-1 and 6-3.
The applicant was represented by Me Patrice Spinosi (Paris) who was not available for comments.
On December 12th 2005, Mr. Jalal Boukneter and Mr Nabil Boukneter were arrested for a drug trafficking investigation. They were detained in the police station of Villeneuve-sur-Lot where they were put under oath and interrogated for 3 days before they could meet their lawyer.
On November 22nd 2006, the investigation chamber of the appeal court of Agen refused to suppress the transcripts of police interrogation of the first 3 days of police custody. On March 20th 2007, the supreme court rejected their appeal (06-89555).
On September 19th 2007, the applicants lodged their application with the Court arguing that the refusal of the police to allow their lawyer to assist them in police custody, was a violation of article 6 of the Convention. On May 2nd 2011, the application was communicated to the agent for the French government. The applicants are advised by Me Laurence Morisset (Agen) who wasn’t available for comments.
From November 28th 1995 to January 18th 1999, the tax department audited the accounts of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) in France. On February 8th 1996, the minister responsible of the tax department, Mr Alain Lamassoure, publicly supported at the national assembly, the harassment of minority religion by tax (“the tax department, whose actions on several occasions resulted in a certain repression of the activity of sects”) .
On May 14th 1998, the department decided to tax at the rate of 60% the donations from believers of JW for years 1993 to 1996, refusing to tax-exempt them. The department applied also a penalty rate of 80% which resulted that the donations to JW were taxed at rate of..108% and fixed the annual interest at 9% on late payments.
On July 4th 2000, the tribunal of Nanterre rejected the applicant’s claim. On February 2002 the appeal court of Versailles confirmed the ruling. On October 5th 2004, the supreme court rejected the appeal of the applicant (03-15709) on the ground that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were not recognized and authorized by the government as a religion.
On February 24th 2005, the applicant lodged its case (see below) to the Court arguing that the tax rate of 108% on donations to JW was a discrimination in violation of articles 9 and 11 of the Convention with article 14. He added that the tax rate in itself was a violation of article 1 P1 and that the use of a tax to harass a minority religion a violation of articles 18 and 1 P1. The applicant submitted also allegation of violations of articles 6-1 and 13.
On June 17th 2008, the Court found inadmissible all the allegations of violations of the Convention except the one of articles 9 and 14. On September 21st 2010, the Court found admissible the allegation of violation of article 9.
On June 30th 2011, the Court found a violation of article 9 of the Convention on the ground that the tax rate of 108% applied to the donations to the applicant was not foreseeable and therefore not “according to law”. The Court will rule on damages at a later date. The applicant was represented by Me Philippe Goni (Paris).
According to Me Philippe Goni (comments), this is the first time that the Court found that the French Republic violated article 9. He added that this raises serious questions about the “passiveness of the national courts” . He requested that the tax department annulled the whole demand of tax and penalties (more than €50 millions) and reimbursed the amount already seized.
From October 9th 2003, according to Mr. Pierre-Yves Chereul, the new headmaster T. of a junior high school in Nimes, began to harass him at work. On May 12th 2004, T. obtained a disciplinary sanction against the applicant. On December 7th 2006, the administrative tribunal of Nimes annulled the sanction.
On March 24th 2004, T. wrote a private letter about the alleged behavior of the applicant during a meeting on March 22nd, to G. head of the local parent association (FCPE). T. informed G. that he will use his answer in a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant. The letter was communicated to the two members of the parent association present at the meeting. They both denied the veracity of the allegations of T.
The applicant was denied legal aid by the employer of T. to sue T. for libel. Nevertheless, the applicant sued T. for libel at the tribunal of Nimes. On May 19th 2004, the district attorney submitted on behalf of the employer of T. a motion to dismiss the case arguing that the tribunal was not competent to hear the case. On October 14th 2004, the tribunal ruled to be non competent to hear the case. On November 21st 2006, the appeal court of Nimes confirmed the ruling. On March 5th 2008, the supreme court rejected the appeal of the applicant (case 07-12451).
On May 7th 2008, the applicant lodged a case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the refusals to hear his case were against the supreme court case-law in violation of article 6-1 of the Convention.
Surprisingly, on May 19th 2011, Judge Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic) of the 5th section of the Court deemed the case Chereul v. France (24631/08) inadmissible. The registrar of the Court also informed the applicant that no ground for the decision will be given and that they will destroy all files of the case in 1 year.
On July 12th 2007, the national council of bar in France (CNB) established in the decision JUSC0757656S the rules for lawyers in reporting confidential information to the government agency Tracfin. Tracfin is a national intelligence agency of the ministry of finance gathering information on money laundering and financing of terrorism.
On October 10th 2007, Mr. Patrick Michaud who is a lawyer in Paris, lodged his case to the administrative supreme (conseil d’etat) to annul the decision JUSC0757656S. On July 23rd 2010, the supreme court annulled partially the decision (case 309993).
On January 19th 2011, the applicant lodged his case (see below) to the Court arguing that the mandatory report of confidential information to Tracfin was a violation of both articles 8 and 6 of the Convention. He added that the disciplinary sanctions for lawyers who didn’t report the information are violations of article 7 He is represented by Me Bertrand Favreau (Bordeaux).
Update :
On December 8th 2011, the application was communicated to the agent of the French Republic with questions to be answered within 16 weeks.
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.
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 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 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.
European Court of Human Rights News 