CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 mars 2009

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 117 March 2009 Léger v. France [GC] - 19324/02 Judgment 30.3.2009 [GC] Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Request for pursuit of proceedings by a person who had not established that he was an heir or a close relative or that he had a legitimate interest: struck out of the list Facts : In 1964 the applicant was arrested and charged with the abduction and murder of an 11-year-old boy. The Assize Court found him guilty as charged and, finding that there were mitigating circumstances, sentenced him to life imprisonment, but without setting a minimum term. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the civil party. In 1979 the applicant became eligible for parole. Between 1985 and 1998 he made numerous applications for release, all of which were refused. In 1999 he again requested his release on licence.   Despite a favourable opinion by the Sentence Enforcement Board and the opinion of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences that there were no obstacles to the applicant’s release on licence, the Minister of Justice refused his application for release following the reform of the post-sentencing system under Law no. 2000-516 of 15 June 2000, in particular the conditions and procedure for releasing long-term prisoners on licence, and referred his case to the newly established courts. In 2001 the applicant submitted an application under the new judicial procedure. The Sentence Enforcement Board issued a unanimous opinion in favour of his release on licence, but the competent courts refused the application. In 2005 the applicant lodged a further application for release on licence. The prison authorities recommended applying a probationary semi-custodial regime. In a judgment, subsequently upheld on by the Post-sentencing Division of the Court of Appeal, the applicant was released on licence with effect from October 2005 until October 2015. The applicant died in July 2008. The applicant had complained to the Court under Article 5 § 1 (a) that his continued detention had been arbitrary. He had also submitted that in practice his sentence had been tantamount to a whole-life sentence and therefore constituted inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. In a judgment of 11 April 2006 the Chamber had found no violation of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention   (by five votes to two) and no violation of Article 3 of the Convention   (five votes to two). Law : The applicant had been found dead in his home on 18 July 2008 and the ensuing request to pursue the proceedings in his place had been submitted by someone who had provided no evidence either of her status as an heir or a close relative of the applicant, or of any legitimate interest. Therefore, under Article   37 § (c) of the Convention, it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Nor did the Court consider that respect for human rights required the examination of the case to be continued, given that the relevant domestic law had in the meantime changed and that similar issues in other cases before it had been resolved. Conclusion : striking out (thirteen votes to four).   © 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