CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 novembre 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law November 1994 Beaumartin v. France - 15287/89 Judgment 24.11.1994 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Fair hearing Independent tribunal Fairness of the proceedings in the Conseil d'Etat, which considered itself bound by Minister for Foreign Affairs' interpretation of an international agreement: Article 6 § 1 applicable: violation Reasonable time Length of proceedings in the administrative courts: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Franco-Moroccan Protocol proclaimed principle of right to compensation of victims of expropriation of agricultural land in Morocco, even though it was for the French authorities to determine how compensation was to be apportioned - entitlement established was a pecuniary right and therefore a civil right, notwithstanding origin of the dispute and fact that the administrative courts had jurisdiction. Conclusion : applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance 1.   Length of proceedings (a) Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: filing of application in Paris Administrative Court. End: delivery of the Conseil d'Etat's judgment. Total: eight years and four months. (b) Assessment Applicants contributed to prolonging proceedings - case was a difficult one because of wording of provision in issue and procedure followed to obtain an official interpretation - however, long periods during which proceedings in the Conseil d'Etat stagnated, for which no explanations had been forthcoming. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). 2.   Fairness of the proceedings Complaint examined from point of view of the independence of tribunal and not from that of the principle of equality of arms. At the material time the administrative courts had to refer to a representative of the executive when difficulties arose in the interpretation of an international agreement - in this case ministerial involvement, which was decisive for the outcome of the legal proceedings, was not open to challenge by the applicants - designation "tribunal" entails, inter alia, full jurisdiction and independence of the executive and of the parties to the case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursement of entire sum claimed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes