CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 août 2015

.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 } .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 188 August-September 2015 Renard and Others v. France (dec.) - 3569/12, 9145/12, 9161/12 et al. Decision 25.8.2015 [Section V] Article 6 Constitutional proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal by the Cour de cassation to refer questions to the Constitutional Council for a preliminary ruling: inadmissible Facts – In the course of proceedings to which they were parties, the applicants raised preliminary questions of constitutionality, which the Court of Cassation refused to refer to the Constitutional Council. Law – Article 6 § 1: The issue at stake in the present case was whether the guarantees of a fair trial applied to the examination of a preliminary question of constitutionality by the ordinary courts, that is to say, the lower courts and the Court of Cassation as opposed to the Constitutional Council. As the applicants had raised the preliminary questions of constitutionality in the ordinary courts in the course of proceedings relating either to civil rights and obligations or to criminal charges, Article   6 was applicable. While the preliminary question procedure had allowed litigants, since the 2008 constitutional reform, to contest the constitutionality of a legislative provision in the course of proceedings before the ordinary courts, the Court of Cassation and the Conseil d’État were not required to refer the question to the Constitutional Council if they considered, for instance, that the question was not new and that it lacked serious merit. Domestic law granted them a degree of discretion when it came to regulating access to the Constitutional Council. As this discretion was not at odds with the Convention, the Court had to take it into consideration in conducting its review. In the present case the Court of Cassation had given reasons for its decisions on the basis of the grounds set forth in the legislation for refusing to refer a preliminary question. Accordingly, the Court could discern no appearance of arbitrariness such as to undermine the fairness of the proceedings in question. There had therefore been no unjustified interference with the right of access to the Constitutional Council. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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