CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 novembre 2003

.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 58 November 2003 Loiseau v. France (dec.) - 46809/99 Decision 18.11.2003 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Procedure concerning disclosure of administrative documents relating to the personal situation of an individual with regard to his career: Article 6 applicable The applicant had replaced an established schoolteacher in a secondary school. In order to be able to rely on his rights, he requested his employer to provide him with the administrative documents relating to his engagement and to his social security contributions, and his payslips. By judgment of November 1992, which has become final, the administrative court annulled the decision of the director of the secondary school refusing to comply with his request. In July 1993, the applicant requested the Council of State to order enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour, with a daily financial penalty in default. His request was rejected in February 1996. Admissible under Article 6 § 1: The Court rejects the Government’s argument that Article 6 is not applicable on the ground that the proceedings concerned the communication of administrative documents: domestic law recognises an individual right of access to such documents and in the event of refusal makes provision for the matter to be brought before the courts. In the present case, the dispute was real and serious and involved the determination of a private right, since the documents requested related directly and exclusively to the applicant’s private situation and, in particular, would allow him to rely on his rights to the re-establishment of his career, which confers on the dispute an economic complexion in favour of the application of Article 6. By requesting the administrative court to order enforcement of the judgment, and to impose a financial penalty in default, the applicant exhausted domestic remedies as regards the complaint alleging failure to enforce the final judgment. The Government’s objection is therefore also dismissed on that point.   © 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