CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 décembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB7F5D93A { width:15.44pt; display:inline-block } .sF9BD2345 { width:125.47pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   613 7.12.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic and France   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] . (All are available only in French.)   Kilián v. the Czech Republic (application no. 48309/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Jiří Kilián, is a Czech national who was born in 1950 and lives in Brno (Czech Republic).   In April 1996 he made an unsuccessful application for planning permission to build a gas station on land which he jointly owned. The relevant authority ruled that the application was invalid as the applicant had failed to fill the application form in correctly. Its decision was upheld on an internal appeal to a higher administrative authority.   The applicant sought judicial review of that decision in the Brno Regional Court, but it declined jurisdiction to hear it. On 9 November 1998 his appeal to the Constitutional Court was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights that he had been unable to obtain judicial review of the administrative decisions that had been taken in his case.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that decisions taken by administrative authorities which did not themselves satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 had to be amenable to review by a judicial body that complied with that provision. The Constitutional Court did not satisfy the requirements as it only had jurisdiction to examine the constitutional conformity of the administrative authority’s decision.   The Regional Court had declined to examine the case, holding that it had no jurisdiction to do so. As a result, the applicant’s objections that the conditions imposed by the administrative authority were excessive and unreasonable had only been examined by the higher administrative authority, an entity that did not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. The Court noted in that connection that the domestic legislation had since been amended and the national courts now adopted a different approach.   It found that there had been insufficient judicial scrutiny for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with the result that the applicant had been deprived of his right of access to a court. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 under Article 41 (just satisfaction) for costs and expenses.   Geniteau v. France (no. 49572/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Alain Geniteau, is a French national who was born in 1949 and lives in Brest (France). He lodged a criminal complaint for defamation of an official and applied to be joined to the proceedings as a civil party. His claims were rejected by the tribunals of fact and his appeal to the Court of Cassation dismissed.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that the proceedings in the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation were unfair, owing to the Advocate-General’s presence at the deliberations.   The Court reiterated that the mere presence of the Advocate-General at the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation’s deliberations was incompatible with Article 6 § 1. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention on that account. It considered that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage the applicant had sustained and awarded him 300 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.