CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 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 } .s7AAE25EE { width:84.74pt; display:inline-block } .s3AF73327 { width:142.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7D0302E { width:146.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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   635 14.12.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1] (All three are available only in French.)   Cossec v. France (application no. 69678/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1   The applicant, Marie-Louise Cossec, is a French national. She was born in 1931 and lives in Guipavas (France). In the course of a dispute concerning the division of her late husband’s estate, the applicant lodged a cross-appeal to the Court of Cassation for the purpose of securing recognition of the validity of a gift between spouses.   The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Civil Division of the Court of Cassation had been unfair in that the advocate-general had been present at the deliberations. She relied on Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Right reiterated that the mere presence of the advocate-general at 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 this point and awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.     Nesme   v. France   (no. 72783/01)   Violations Article 6 § 1   The applicant, Georges Nesme, is a French national. He was born in 1945 and lives in Lyons (France). In June 2000 he was convicted of fraud. Both at first instance and on appeal, he unsuccessfully pleaded that the proceedings were void on the ground that a document which he had submitted, allegedly proving his innocence, had not been included in the case file. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on 7 February 2001.   The applicant complained in particular of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing) and Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The Court declared the application partly admissible with respect to the complaint regarding the unfairness of the proceedings and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court considered that the period available to the applicant for filing additional pleadings had not infringed his rights under Article 6 § 1 and consequently concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of the Convention on this point. Further, bearing in mind the Court of Cassation’s role and having regard to the proceedings in their entirety, the Court considered that the fact that the applicant had been unable to present his case orally before the Court of Cassation had not infringed his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. Consequently, it concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of the Convention as regards the fact that the applicant was not summoned to and did not take part in the hearing in the Court of Cassation.   As to the complaint based on the failure to supply a copy of the advocate-general’s submissions, the Court noted that Mr Nesme had been informed of the tenor of those submissions and was accordingly able to respond to them in writing. His case had been examined fairly before the Court of Cassation and the adversarial principle had been observed. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on that point.   Further, the Court pointed out that the failure to supply a copy of the reporting judge’s report to the applicant or his counsel prior to the hearing, even though this document had been supplied to the advocate-general, created an imbalance that was incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. Finally, the Court reiterated that the mere presence of the advocate-general at 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 those two points.   As the applicant had submitted no claims in respect of just satisfaction, the Court considered that there was no ground for awarding him any sum under this head.     Pause   v. France   (no. 61092/00)   Violations Article 6 § 1   The applicant, Pierre Pause, is a French national. He lives in Sainte-Clotilde, in the département of Réunion. He filed a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, for defamation and aiding and abetting in defamation. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the order by the investigating judge to discontinue the proceedings. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation on 18 April 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complained that the proceedings before the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation had been unfair in that he had not been summoned him to the hearing or supplied with a copy of the advocate-general’s submissions.     Bearing in mind the Court of Cassation’s role and having regard to the proceedings in their entirety, the Court considered that the fact that the applicant had been unable to plead his case orally before the Court of Cassation did not constitute a violation of Article 6 § 1. Further, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to supply the applicant with a copy of the advocate-general’s submissions.   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. As the latter had submitted no claims in respect of costs and expenses, no award could be made to him under this head.       ***   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.