CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 février 2006

.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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   81 14.2.2006   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 five Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   The length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.       Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lecarpentier v. France (application no 67847/01) The applicants, Roland Lecarpentier and his wife Danielle le Maoult, are French nationals who were born in 1944 and 1946 respectively and live in Trie-la-Ville (France).   When the applicants were unable to keep up with the repayments on their mortgage, they had to sell their house and pay 776,538.81 French francs (FRF) – about 118,380 euros (EUR) – to the lender, a company called “Financière Saint-Georges” which subsequently changed its name to “Royal Saint-Georges Banque” (RSGB). In 1994 they brought proceedings against the company seeking a declaration that it was not entitled to the interest on the loan and recovery of the sum they had paid on the ground that the repayments table had not been enclosed with the loan proposal. The Paris tribunal de grande instance gave judgment in the applicants’ favour and made an interim award requiring RSGB to pay them FRF 118,062.02 (nearly EUR 18,000).   While an appeal was pending there came into force Law no. 96-314 of 12 April 1996 “laying down various economic and financial provisions”, section 87(1) of which amended, with retrospective effect, the provisions of the Consumers’ Code governing loan proposals. Applying that law, the Paris Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 27 June 1997, ordered the applicants to pay back to RSGB the FRF 118,062.02 they had received. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Cassation.   They submitted to the Court that the retrospective application of the Law of 12 April 1996 had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). The European Court of Human Rights considered that the applicants had a proprietary interest which constituted, if not a claim against their opponent, at least a “legitimate expectation” of being able to recover the sum concerned, which was a “possession”. The Law of 12 April 1996 had entailed an interference with the applicants’ exercise of the rights they could previously have asserted by virtue of the legislation and case-law then applicable, and accordingly with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   As to whether the interference was in the public interest, the Court observed that in principle financial reasons alone could not justify such legislative intervention. In the present case, there was no evidence to support the French Government’s argument that if the law concerned had not been enacted the impact would have been so great that the stability of the banking sector and economic activity in general would have been endangered.   The Court found that enactment of the new legislation had not been justified by pressing reasons of general interest, as required by the rule of law, among other principles. The measure had placed an “abnormal and excessive burden” on the applicants and the interference with their possessions had been disproportionate. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 6 § 1.   It awarded the applicants EUR 20,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   8,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Dušek v. Slovakia (no. 30276/03) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,450   For costs and expenses: EUR 500 Havlíčková v. the Czech Republic (no. 28009/03) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000 Šebeková and Horvatovičová v. the Czech Republic (no. 73233/01) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,600 (each) Skoma, Spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic (no. 21377/02) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 8,150   For costs and expenses: EUR 1379   (The Dušek , Havlíčková , Šebeková and Horvatovičová judgments are available only in English; the Skoma, Spol. s r.o. judgment is available only in French.)     ***   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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.