CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 13 avril 2010

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DC53971 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } 309 13.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Admissibility decision     Georges Lopez v. France (application no. 28627/06)   Unanimously:   APPLICATION LODGED BY TEACHER INVOLVED IN SCHOOL DOCUMENTARY FILM “ ETRE ET AVOIR ” DECLARED INADMISSIBLE     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Georges Lopez, is a French national who was born in 1945 and lives in Canet Plage (France). He is a teacher. Between December 2000 and June 2001 a documentary film – “ Etre et Avoir ” – was made, with the authorisation of the Ministry of Education, in the one-classroom school where he taught. The film was subsequently released in cinemas and presented at the Cannes film festival. Mr Lopez helped to promote the film, appearing on radio and television shows and in debates. In September 2002 the production company offered Mr Lopez a lump-sum payment for his participation (past and future) in addition to the expenses already paid.   In February 2003 Mr Lopez brought proceedings before the labour courts, seeking acknowledgment of the existence of an employment contract which he alleged had been wrongfully breached. On 5 November 2003 the Perpignan industrial tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute: there was no relationship of subordination to indicate the existence of any employment contract; no remuneration had been agreed between the production company and Mr Lopez at the outset; and Mr Lopez had been under no obligation to take part in any programme. Furthermore, his status as a civil servant was incompatible with his receiving private remuneration. That ruling was upheld by the Montpellier Court of Appeal on 31 March 2004. Mr Lopez lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed on 15 February 2006.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Lopez complained that he had not had access to a court. He argued that the definition of employment in French law was open to judicial interpretation and unclear, leaving it to the judges to decide who qualified for the social protection afforded to employees. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he further argued that he had had a legitimate expectation of having the existence of an employment contract acknowledged, together with the corresponding pecuniary entitlements. Lastly, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that he had had no effective remedy to protect his property.   The application was lodged on 13 July 2006. The decision on admissibility was given by a Chamber composed of seven judges:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia),   Judges,   and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,     Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court reiterated that its function was not to substitute its own assessment for that of the national courts, but simply to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting States to the Convention. In this case it noted that Mr Lopez had had access to three successive levels of jurisdiction and had had the benefit of adversarial proceedings. He had been able to argue his case, and his arguments had been examined by the French courts, which had duly given reasons for their decisions. There was no evidence that those decisions had been arbitrary. Furthermore, the fact that Mr Lopez had not won his case before the French courts did not, in itself, impair the effectiveness of his right of access to a court.   This complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded and, as such, inadmissible (Article 35 §§ 3 and 4).   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Convention guarantees everyone’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. These possessions can be either “existing possessions”, or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a “legitimate expectation” that they will be realised. The Court noted that in this case it was in the course of his work as a teacher that Mr Lopez had been filmed for the purposes of the documentary. As a civil servant, however, he was not entitled to enter into private employment in addition to his job as a teacher. Taking into account the reasons advanced by the French courts, the Court agreed that the work done by Mr Lopez to promote the film had clearly not been covered by an employment contract between him and the production company under French law.   That being so, Mr Lopez had not even had a “legitimate expectation” that his claim would be realised.   This complaint was manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible (Article 35 §§ 3 and 4).   Article 13   This Article applied only where an individual had an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right. In this case Mr Lopez contended that he had had no effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of his property rights. The Court had already found, however, that his complaint concerning his property rights was manifestly ill-founded.     The applicant therefore had no arguable complaint under Article 13 and this complaint was accordingly declared inadmissible (Article 35 §§ 3 and 4).   ****   The decision is available only in French. It is accessible on the Court’s   Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court.   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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.