CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 juin 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 164 June 2013 Marc-Antoine v. France (dec.) - 54984/09 Decision 4.6.2013 [Section V] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Communication of reporting judge’s draft decision to public rapporteur in proceedings before Conseil d’Etat : inadmissible   Facts – The applicant complained that during the proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat , unlike the “public rapporteur” ( rapporteur public ) at the Conseil d’Etat , he had not been given a copy of the draft decision of the reporting judge. Law – Article 6 § 1: Firstly, the draft decision of the reporting judge, who was a member of the court responsible for examining the case, was not a document submitted by a party that might influence the court’s decision but rather an element produced within the court in the process of preparing the final decision. The adversarial principle enshrined in Article 6 §   1 of the Convention could not apply to an internal working document of that nature, which was confidential. Concerning the fact that the document had been transmitted to the public rapporteur, the latter was a member of the Conseil d’Etat , just like his colleagues on the bench, the only difference between them being the special duties temporarily vested in him. Furthermore, in carrying out his duty as public rapporteur, which consisted in publicly and independently giving his opinion on the questions raised by the different cases and how they might best be resolved, he made an analysis of the case file comparable to that made by the reporting judge. Irrespective of whether he shared the views of the reporting judge, the public rapporteur used that judge’s draft decision in determining the position he would publicly submit to the court. Thus the conclusions of the public rapporteur, in so far as they relied on the analysis made by the reporting judge, were such as to enable the parties to appreciate the key elements of the case and the court’s assessment of them, thereby giving them an opportunity to reply before the judges reached their decision. Consequently, this procedural particularity, which gave the parties a glimpse of the line of thought developed by the court, and an opportunity to make their final observations before the court reached its decision, did not adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. In addition, the applicant had failed to show in what respect the public rapporteur might be considered as an adversary or a party to the proceedings, which he would have needed to do in order to be able to claim a breach of the equality of arms principle. The third-party interveners – the Conseil d’Etat and Court of Cassation Bar and the National Bar Council, two organisations representative of the professionals responsible for defending people in the domestic courts, particularly the administrative courts – disagreed with the applicant’s submissions and supported the Government’s position. Wanting the present system to be maintained, and warning of the adverse effects its disappearance would have, they considered that it offered better guarantees to the parties, while helping to ensure the quality of administrative justice in France. In any event, the transmission of the draft decision to the public rapporteur had by no means placed the applicant at any disadvantage, or been prejudicial to the defence of his civil interests, which were the only interests in issue in these administrative proceedings. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). (See also Kress v. France [GC], 39594/98 , 7   June 2001, Information Note   31)   © 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