CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 9 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7FAB69C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0000ff } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s1ED9948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   745 09.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision Etienne v. France (application no. 11396/08 )   REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CONSEIL D’ETAT     Principal facts   The applicant, Mrs Yvonne Etienne, is a French national who was born in 1918 and lives in La Tour de Salvagny (France). As the owner of an estate including a château and parkland, Mrs Etienne brought an action for damages in the administrative courts after the Lyons urban district authority granted planning permission for an industrial and retail park in the immediate vicinity of her estate. Her claim that this would result in a substantial reduction in the value of her property was dismissed on 7   June 2005 by the Lyons Administrative Court and on 9   March 2006 by the Lyons Administrative Court of Appeal. The applicant, assisted by a prescribed specialist lawyer, appealed on points of law to the Conseil d’Etat . On 29   May 2007 her lawyer received notice of the hearing to be held on 7   June 2007. The notice stated that a request could be made for the Government Commissioner [1] not to attend the deliberations; Mrs Etienne made no such request. Her appeal was dismissed on 22   June 2007 following a hearing at which her lawyer was present.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of a breach of the principle of equality of arms before the Conseil d’Etat on account of the dominant role of the Government Commissioner. Her complaint related to the presence of the Government Commissioner during the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat and the fact that his submissions were not communicated in advance and there was no opportunity to reply to them at the hearing. Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicant further complained that the Conseil d’Etat had not given sufficient reasons for its decision. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 December 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen , President , Renate Jaeger , Jean-Paul Costa , Karel Jungwiert , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges ,   and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Presence of the Government Commissioner at the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat   The Court pointed out that it had already held in a number of judgments that the fact that the Government Commissioner attended Conseil d’Etat deliberations ex officio was not in keeping with the requirements of a fair hearing (in particular because appearances were liable to raise doubts in litigants’ minds as to the court’s impartiality). It observed that the relevant rules had been amended in the wake of those judgments. The parties to the proceedings could now request that the Government Commissioner should not be present at the deliberations and were informed of that possibility in writing in advance of the hearing. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for supervising execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, considered that the authorities had taken all the necessary measures - in particular to avoid new, similar violations in future - and concluded its examination of the cases concerned in 2007.   In the case of Mrs Etienne, the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat had taken place after the entry into force of the new rules (1 September 2006). She had been informed before the hearing of her right to request that the Government Commissioner should not attend the deliberations. She could therefore be considered to have waived that right. Accordingly, her complaint was manifestly ill-founded and hence inadmissible.   Failure to communicate the submissions of the Government Commissioner in advance and impossibility of replying to them at the hearing; failure to give sufficient reasons for the Conseil d’Etat judgment   These complaints too were declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. On the first point, the Court reiterated its well-established case-law. On the second point, it noted that a decision by an appellate court dismissing (on the basis of specific legal provisions) an appeal which had no prospect of success did not necessarily have to be accompanied by detailed reasons.     ***   The decision is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The decision is accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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] The Government Commissioner is a member of the court whose task is to present, on a wholly independent basis, the solution to the legal issue raised by the dispute which he or she deems most appropriate on the basis of the law in force.