CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 mai 2005

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   240 3.5.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING SILIADIN v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Tuesday 3 May 2005 at 2.30 p.m., on the merits in the case of Siliadin v. France (application no. 73316/01).   The applicant   The applicant, Siwa-Akofa Siliadin, is a Togolese national who was born in 1978 and lives in Paris.   Summary of the facts   In January 1994 the applicant, who was then fifteen and a half years old, arrived in France with a French national of Togolese origin, Mrs D., who had undertaken to regularise the girl’s immigration status and to arrange for her education, while the applicant was to do housework for Mrs D. until she had earned enough to pay her back for her air ticket. The applicant effectively became an unpaid servant to Mr and Mrs D. and her passport was confiscated.   In around October 1994 Mrs D. “lent” the applicant to a couple of friends, Mr and Mrs B., to help them with household chores and to look after their young children. She was supposed to stay for only a few days until Mrs B. gave birth. However, after her child was born, Mrs B. decided to keep the applicant on. She became a “maid of all work” to the couple, who made her work from 7.30 a.m. until 10.30 p.m. every day with no days off, giving her special permission to go to mass on certain Sundays. The applicant slept in the children’s bedroom on a mattress on the floor and wore old clothes.   In July 1998 the applicant confided in a neighbour, who informed the Committee against Modern Slavery, which reported the matter to the prosecuting authorities. Criminal proceedings were brought against Mr and Mrs B. for wrongfully obtaining unpaid or insufficiently paid services from a vulnerable or dependent person, an offence under Article   225-13 of the Criminal Code, and for subjecting that person to working or living conditions incompatible with human dignity, an offence under Article 225-14 of the Code.   The defendants were convicted at first instance and sentenced to, among other penalties, twelve months’ imprisonment (seven of which were suspended), but were acquitted on appeal. In a judgment of 15 May 2003 the Versailles Court of Appeal, to which the case had subsequently been referred by the Court of Cassation, found Mr and Mrs B. guilty of making the applicant, a vulnerable and dependent person, work unpaid for them but considered that her working and living conditions were not incompatible with human dignity. It accordingly ordered them to pay the applicant the equivalent of 15,245 euros (EUR) in damages.   In October 2003 an employment tribunal awarded the applicant a sum that included EUR   31,238 in salary arrears.   Complaint   Relying on Article 4 (prohibition of forced labour) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant submits that French criminal law did not afford her sufficient and effective protection against the “servitude” in which she was held, or at the very least against the “forced and compulsory” labour she was required to perform, which in practice made her a domestic slave.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 April 2001 and declared partly admissible on 1 February 2005.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , Danute Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (citizen of Serbia and Montenegro), substitute judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Edwige   Belliard , Agent ,   Gilles Dutertre , Judith Vailhé , Raymond Poincet ,   Emmanuelle Puren , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Hélène Clément , Counsel .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   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.