CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 11 juin 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1899FD0F { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#0000ff } .s289A4F99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7AF76660 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sC0C8FB37 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } 477 11.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision     Boniface v. France   (application no. 28785/09)   Unanimously: application inadmissible   COMPENSATION GRANTED TO applicant WAS APPROPRIATE AND SUFFICIENT redress     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Charles Boniface, is a French national who lives in Mont-Saint-Aignan.   Following a tax audit, on 31 December 1986 he was assessed for income tax arrears in respect of 1980 for a total of 924,299 euros (EUR). The applicant brought proceedings before the Rouen administrative court to challenge that assessment. Following the proceedings, the Conseil d’État , in a decision of 30 December 2002, re-established the applicant’s liability at EUR 481,856.   The applicant lodged an application seeking EUR 1,126,000 in compensation from the State on account of both personal and pecuniary damage resulting from the excessive length of the proceedings before the administrative courts. Mr Boniface’s alleged pecuniary damage corresponded in particular to legal costs, to his inability to use his assets, and to health-related expenses.   His claim was first dismissed but later partly upheld by the Conseil d’État , which held that the State had to pay the applicant EUR 13,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As regards the pecuniary damage that he had alleged, the Conseil d’État found that the fees paid to consultants were not related to the excessive length of the proceedings, that his inability to use his assets stemmed solely from his decision to request a payment extension and, lastly, that he had failed to show how his health-related expenses had been caused by the excessive length of the proceedings.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained about the compensation awarded by the Conseil d’Etat , arguing that it was insufficient redress for the personal and pecuniary damage he had suffered allegedly as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings before the administrative courts concerning his tax assessment.   The application was lodged on 23 April 2009.   The decision on admissibility was given on 25 May 2010 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), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia),   Judges,   and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that when a violation was found by the domestic authorities and that their decision constituted appropriate and sufficient redress for that violation, the party concerned could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 (right of individual application) of the Convention. Regarding violations of the reasonable-time requirement, one of the characteristics of sufficient redress which might remove a litigant’s victim status related to the amount awarded as a result of using the domestic remedy. The Court had already had occasion to indicate that an applicant’s victim status might depend on the amount of compensation awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complained before the Court 1 .   In the present case the violation had certainly been established by the courts. The Conseil d’Etat had found in its judgment of 31 December 2008 that the applicant’s right to a judgment within a reasonable time had been breached.   The amount of the compensation, together with the length of the proceedings and the promptness of payment had to be taken into account in assessing whether the redress was appropriate and sufficient 2 . As regards the pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant, the Court found that he had not shown that his losses had been the direct consequence of the alleged violation. The Conseil d’Etat ’s decision on this point could not therefore be called into question. Concerning the non-pecuniary damage, the Court found that the sum awarded to the applicant, EUR 13,000, could be regarded as appropriate and thus capable of providing redress. Moreover, the Court noted that the length of the compensation proceedings had been reasonable and that the applicant had not alleged any delay in the payment of the sum awarded.   In these circumstances, the redress provided by the domestic authorities had been sufficient and appropriate.   The Court concluded that, having regard to the material before it, there had been no appearance of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols. The application was therefore dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.   [1] see Grand Chamber judgment Cocchiarella v. Italy , no. 64886/01, § 93 [2] idem, §§ 86-107   ****   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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) 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.       [2] Idem, §§ 86-107