CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 septembre 2001

.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 34 September 2001 S.G. v. France - 40669/98 Judgment 18.9.2001 [Section III] Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Association seeking to pursue application following death of applicant: struck out The applicant maintained that the principles of the equality of arms and of adversarial process had not been observed in proceedings before the Court of Cassation, as judge rapporteur’s report was not communicated to the parties although State Counsel received a copy. The applicant died without leaving any descendants and named as her sole heir a juristic person, the Fondation de France. The law : The Court did not preclude a deceased applicant being replaced by a juristic person named as heir. It reiterated, however, that in any event, that could only occur if the heir was able to show a legitimate interest – pecuniary or non-pecuniary – in continuing the proceedings. The sole outstanding complaint before the Court concerned an infringement of the principles of equality of arms and of adversarial process before the Court of Cassation. The Court failed to see how the Fondation de France could have any interest in having that complaint examined and therefore concluded that there was no justification for pursuing the examination of the application.   © 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