CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 2 octobre 2007

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   643 2.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   INADMISSIBILITY DECISION AL FAYED v. FRANCE   A Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible the application lodged in the case of Al Fayed v. France (application no. 38501/02) (The decision is available only in French.)   The applicant   The applicant, Mohamed Al Fayed, is an Egyptian national who was born in 1933 and lives in London. His son, Emad Fayed, commonly known as Dodi Al Fayed, died in an accident which also led to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.   Summary of the facts   The case concerned the investigations carried out by the French authorities following the death of the applicant’s son and the fairness of the corresponding proceedings.   On the night of 31 August 1997 the car in which the applicant’s son was travelling, together with the Princess of Wales, crashed into one of the pillars of the Pont d’Alma tunnel in Paris. Dodi Al Fayed, Princess Diana and the driver, Henri Paul, died; only the bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, survived the crash.   On 2 September 1997 a judicial investigation was opened, based on charges of unintentional homicide and wounding and failure to assist a person in danger. The case was assigned to an investigating judge and a second judge was later appointed. Mr Al Fayed joined the proceedings as a civil party. Some ten photographers, who had been following the vehicle shortly before the accident, were formally placed under judicial investigation.   The judges decided on various investigative measures and in particular appointed forensic experts whose assignment was to provide relevant medical information with regard to the precise causes, circumstances and exact time of the deaths, and to the treatment provided at the scene of the accident. Mr Al Fayed applied for a number of additional measures of investigation but his requests were denied. The measures concerned, for example, the damaged vehicle, certain calls made by mobile phone at the material time, examination of staff from the British Embassy and from the National Security Agency and the circumstances in which the Princess’ body had been embalmed while still in France.   In September 1999 the investigating judges decided to drop the charges against all the individuals under investigation. Their decision was upheld by the Investigation Division of the Paris Court of Appeal in October 2000 and the Court of Cassation declared Mr Al Fayed’s appeal on points of law inadmissible on 3 April 2002.   In parallel, on 9 October 1997 Mr Al Fayed filed a criminal complaint for the offence of interference with private life and claimed civil-party status. The judicial investigation into his complaint was assigned to one of the judges who had been entrusted with the investigation opened on 2 September 1997, but the two cases were never joined.   Mr Al Fayed complained about the investigating judge’s failure to act and in October 2000 he lodged an application claiming that the French State was liable for the shortcomings in the proceedings he had brought. His application resulted, on 28 April 2003, in a judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal acknowledging the liability of the State on grounds of gross negligence in the administration of justice and denial of justice.   On 17 February 2006 the Paris Court of Appeal, upon the remittal from the Court of Cassation of the case concerning Mr Al Fayed’s complaint of 9 October 1997, ordered three photographers to pay him the sum of one euro in damages.   Mr Al Fayed subsequently filed three further criminal complaints: in respect of the first, for destruction of evidence and concealment of a body, on account of the embalming of Princess Diana’s body, an appeal on points of law is pending after a ruling that the conditions for opening an investigation were not satisfied; the second complaint was for an aggravated offence of tampering with evidence, on account of the alleged disappearance of a note drafted by Princess Diana’s representative conveying her fears that there was a plot to kill her in a car crash; the third complaint was for premeditated murder.     Complaints   The applicant complained, under Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, about the conducting of the official investigation into the circumstances surrounding his son’s death. He further complained about the failure to join the two judicial investigations, about the unsatisfactory handling of his complaint of 9 October 1997 and about the non-adversarial nature of the forensic medical examinations. He relied on Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.     Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 October 2002.     Decision of the Court [1]   As regards the effectiveness of the investigation into the death of the applicant’s son, the Court observed that numerous investigative measures had been taken in the case and that the applicant, assisted by counsel, had been able to exercise his rights throughout the proceedings.   While the applicant complained about certain aspects of the judicial investigation, he had availed himself of the opportunity to raise the various issues and the refusals he had met with did not, as such, call into question the effectiveness of the investigations, as a whole, by the French authorities.   The Court noted that the applicant’s criticisms had mainly concerned the choice of leads to be followed up by the investigators and the assessment of the evidence gathered. However, those points of disagreement between the applicant and the investigating judges, while they were understandable in relation to the expectations of a civil party in such a sensitive investigation, did not suffice to show that there were shortcomings in the investigation or any impediment preventing the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son from being elucidated.   In any event, the Court pointed out that it was open to the applicant to file fresh complaints if any new elements subsequently came to light, as he had in fact done.   Finding that the authorities had conducted an effective investigation for the purpose of establishing the circumstances and cause of the death of the applicant’s son, the Court declared the complaint under Article 2 inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.   As regards the other complaints relating to the separation of the two judicial investigations, to the handling of the second, and to the non-adversarial nature of the forensic medical examinations, the Court did not find any appearance of a violation of the Convention.   The case certainly presented some real difficulties, stemming both from the circumstances of the victims’ deaths and from their celebrity. However, the Court referred to its conclusion earlier in the decision that the authorities had carried out an effective investigation within the meaning of Article 2. It considered that the failure to join the proceedings, however regrettable it may have been, did not in itself have the effect of limiting the possibilities for the applicant to make representations in the course of the two sets of proceedings, as shown by the documents in the case-file, and that the complexity and specific nature of the case could reasonably entail the denial of the applicant’s request for joinder of the investigations.   The Court considered that the applicant’s objections to decisions taken by the investigating judges did not suffice, having regard to all the circumstances of the present case, to show that the proceedings had lacked fairness within the meaning of Article 6. Lastly, considering that remedies had been available to the applicant and that he had made use of them, the Court found that the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention was manifestly ill-founded. The Court thus declared the applicant’s other complaints inadmissible.     ***   The decision is available today on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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.   [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.