CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 septembre 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 31398/96                       by Olaseni Aderibige ADESINA                       against France        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 September 1996, the following members being present:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 29 January 1996 by Olaseni Aderibige ADESINA against France and registered on 6 May 1996 under file No. 31398/96 ;          Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Nigerian citizen, born in 1952 and residing in Paris (France).        The applicant has lodged two previous applications with the Commission.        In his first application, No. 16964/90, he complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the proceedings concerning the eviction from his flat of which he was a tenant.        On 5 September 1986, a real estate agency introduced   proceedings before the   Nanterre tribunal de grande instance in order to obtain the applicant's eviction from his flat.        This request was not notified to the applicant.        By a provisional order (ordonnance de référé) of 12 September 1986 the President of the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance decided that the applicant was occupying a flat without any right (ni droit ni titre) and ordered his eviction from this flat. It was stated in this order that the applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing of the same day.        This order was notified to the applicant on 14 October 1986.        The applicant, who was not notified the date of this hearing and was therefore not present at the hearing nor represented by his lawyer, appealed against the eviction order to the Versailles Court of Appeal. The appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal on 23 October 1986.        By a decision of 15 December 1986 the President of the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance rectified the provisional order of 12 September 1986 as follows:        The applicant was neither present nor represented by a      lawyer at the hearing of 12 September 1986;        "Having heard the parties' representatives" shall be      replaced by "having heard the plaintiff's representative";        The words "deciding in a public hearing and in the presence      of both parties" ("statuant publiquement et      contradictoirement") shall be replaced by "deciding in a      public hearing and by a decision deemed to have been given      in proceedings in which both sides were represented"      ("statuant publiquement et par décision réputée      contradictoire")        By a letter of 20 January 1987 the applicant's lawyer, Mr. B, informed the applicant that the date for the conclusion of the pre- trial proceedings was fixed on 8 March 1988 and the date of the hearing on 2 May 1988.        When the applicant appeared a few months later at his lawyer's law firm to pay the lawyer's fees he was informed that by a judgment of 10 July 1987 the Versailles Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal on the ground that he had failed to submit any grounds of appeal.   The operative part of the judgment reads: "Deciding in a public hearing and in the presence of the parties. Confirms the provisional order (...)" ("Statuant publiquement et contradictoirement. Confirme l'ordonnance (...)"). The applicant learned also that on 25 May 1987 his lawyer had resigned from representing him.        By a letter of 25 January 1988 Mr. C., a lawyer at the State Council (Conseil d'Etat) and at the Court of Cassation informed the applicant that an appeal on points of law would have no chance of success. According to him, it would be preferable that the applicant tried to have his rights recognised in proceedings on the merits.        Other lawyers consulted by the applicant confirmed that an appeal on points of law would have no prospects of success.        The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied a fair hearing before the French courts. He complained in particular that the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance had modified its order after its notification to the parties, particularily after an appeal had been lodged. He also complained that the Court of Appeal had given a judgment prior to the date of the hearing which had been previously indicated to the parties and without any notification as to the change of this date. According to him, he was not responsible for not knowing the date of the hearing before the Versailles Court of Appeal. He alleged that the judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal of 10 July 1987 was smuggled out of the court room. He complained furthermore that the obligation under the French Code of Civil Procedure to be represented by a lawyer in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation constituted a violation of his right of access to court.        By a decision of 29 May 1991 a Committee of three members, set up by the European Commission of Human Rights pursuant to Article 20 para. 3 of the Convention, declared the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.        In a second application, No. 29239/95, the applicant criticised the decision of the Committee of three members of 29 May 1991 and submitted supplementary information on the contested proceedings.        On 18 January 1996 a Committee of three members declared the second application inadmissible under Article 27 para. 1 (b) of the Convention as being essentially the same as Application No. 16964/90 and containing no relevant new information.        The facts of the present application concern the same facts as the applicant's two previous applications.        In addition the applicant submits, as "relevant new information", under Article 27 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, documents by which he intends to show that his former lawyer was never present at the hearing before the Versailles Court of Appeal, that the French police was involved in his case and that this was the reason for denying him a residence permit, that his former lawyer, Mr. B, knew his address and received on 28 September 1987 a chèque of 2000 FF from him and that he handed to his former lawyer a notice of forceful expulsion issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 18 November 1986.        The applicant refers also to numerous letters he has sent to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, copies of which have been sent to the Commission's Secretariat, and which should enable the Commission "to understand thoroughly the real details of the basic documents as regards the previous relevant arguments". He stresses that his presence to support all documents and relevant arguments before the Commission is not a mere necessity but a priority.   COMPLAINTS        In his present application the applicant again complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the fairness of the above court proceedings and the denial of his right of access to court.   THE LAW        The applicant complains that he was denied the right to a fair hearing in the proceedings before the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance and the Versailles Court of Appeal. He furthermore complains of the obligation under French law to be represented by a lawyer before the Court of Cassation. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        The Commission notes that the applicant complains of the same matters in the present application which it has already examined and rejected in Applications Nos. 16964/90   and 29239/95.        The Commission points out that, by virtue of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, it may not deal with the present application unless it contains "relevant new information".        The applicant has submitted certain further information concerning the factual circumstances of the case. However, the Commission finds nothing in this information which could alter the basis on which its previous decisions, in particular the decision on Application No. 16964/90, were taken and does not see any reason to reopen the case.        Accordingly the Commission finds that the applicant has not submitted any "relevant new information" in relation to the above complaints. It follows that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.           H.C. KRÜGER                             S. TRECHSEL     Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission