CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 avril 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 52 April 2003 OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France (dec.) - 42219/98 and 54563/00 Decision 3.4.2003 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Adoption of retroactive legislation during court proceedings involving the State: admissible The first applicant is the management board of a private establishment, the Institut Stanislas, and the other applicants are the management boards of Catholic establishments (OGECs). These management boards administer private educational establishments, with State participation. Although the State is responsible for paying the schoolteachers and the associated social security contributions, it transpired that the management boards were required to pay a supplementary social security contribution.   In 1992, a judgment of the Council of State established the principle that they were entitled to repayment in full of the contributions which they had paid in advance, at the rate of 1.5%. The management boards, apart from the applicants, who sought repayment in full of the contributions following the judgment of the Council of State, were in certain cases successful. As regards the applicants, they submitted applications to the authorities and they brought the matter before the administrative courts, seeking an order that the State should make reimbursement in full for the contributions for the periods concerned. While the actions in question were pending, the legislature enacted section 107 of the Law of 31 December 1995, intended to regulate retroactively, for the period prior to 1 November 1995, the question of the proportion of the reimbursement for which the State was responsible. The implementing decree adopted on 16 July 1996 set the rate of that reimbursement at 0.062%. It was at this rate that the applicants obtained reimbursement for the periods concerned. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (equality of arms), and (Nº 54563/00) Article 6 § 1 and Article   1 of Protocole No. 1, also in conjunction with Article 14.   © 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