CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 57 October 2003 Broca and Texier-Micault v. France - 27928/02 and 31694/02 Judgment 21.10.2003 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Length of administrative proceedings: effectiveness of an action against the State based on a deficiency in the administration of justice Fact: These cases concern the length of administrative proceedings which have been concluded in one case and are still pending in the other. Law: Article 6 § 1 – Admissibility: The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They claimed that the Conseil d’Etat’s judgment of 28 June 2002 in the Magiera case had confirmed the recent national case-law under which the State could be held liable for the length of administrative proceedings and the payment of compensation for failure to comply with Article 6 § 1 could be justified in such cases. The Court considered that it was clear from that judgment that by bringing an action for damages against the State on account of the defective functioning of the public justice system, members of the public who were parties to administrative proceedings could now obtain a finding of a violation of their right to have their case heard within “a reasonable time”, and obtain compensation for the resulting damage. Accordingly, the Court concluded that this remedy was one that had to be used for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court was persuaded by the Government’s argument that this applied to completed and pending proceedings. It decided that any complaint lodged with the Court on or after 1 January 2003 concerning the length of proceedings before the French administrative courts would be inadmissible if it had not previously been submitted to the domestic courts in the context of an action for damages against the State on account of the defective functioning of the public justice service, irrespective of the state of domestic proceedings. The applicants having submitted their application to the Court before 1 January 2003, the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was dismissed. On the merits, the periods under consideration had lasted, in one case, more than eight years and, in the other, about five years and three months. The Court found that this exceeded a reasonable time. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the costs and expenses claimed by the second applicant .   © 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