CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 février 2002

.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 39 February 2002 Bufferne v. France (dec.) - 54367/00 Decision 26.2.2002 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Alleged lack of reasons in decision of the Conseil d'Etat refusing leave to lodge a cassation appeal: inadmissible The applicant, who was an auxiliary secretary at the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry, informed her employer that she wished to resign on valid grounds. Her employer replied in a letter that he accepted her resignation but refused to acknowledge that the grounds were valid. As a result, she was unable to claim unemployment benefit. She subsequently applied to the administrative court for judicial review of the decision, but her application was dismissed. When an appeal likewise proved unsuccessful, she appealed on points of law to the Conseil d’Etat , which, after recapitulating the grounds of her appeal, stated that they were not “such as to warrant granting leave” to hear the appeal. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: Section 11 of the Act of 31 December 1987 provided: “Appeals on points of law to the Conseil d’Etat shall be subject to a procedure for the granting of leave ... leave to appeal shall be refused by means of a judicial decision if the appeal is inadmissible or there are no genuine grounds for it”. The Conseil d’Etat had refused the applicant leave to appeal in accordance with that provision and in view of the fact that none of the grounds of the appeal were “such as to warrant leave being granted”. The procedure for granting leave to appeal on points of law to the Conseil d’Etat , as laid down in section 11 of the Act of 31 December 1987, was compatible with the Convention. Although the principle of fairness enshrined in Article 6 § 1 obliged courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions, that obligation could not be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument. In the instant case the Conseil d’Etat had recapitulated the applicant’s grounds of appeal and had stated that they were not “such as to warrant granting leave” to hear the appeal. It had therefore made clear that the applicant’s grounds of appeal did not concern points of pure law – the only valid grounds on which such an appeal could be lodged. The reasons given by the Conseil d’Etat for its decision concerning the applicant’s appeal were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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