CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 juillet 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 568 15.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Chagnon and Fournier v. France (applications no. 44174/06 and 44190/06)   SLAUGHTER OF LIVESTOCK TO PREVENT FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE DID NOT BREACH BREEDERS’ RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF PROPERTY   Unanimously   No Violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants, Jean-Marie Chagnon and Nicolas Fournier, are French nationals who were born in 1953 and 1966 and live in France, at Rezay and Nérondes respectively. They breed sheep in the département of Cher.   Following the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease, which started in the United Kingdom in 2001, the French authorities took measures to protect the country’s cattle, sheep, goat and pig livestock. On 27 and 28 February 2001 two ministerial circulars – referring to an order “pending signature” in accordance with the Countryside Code – indicated to Prefects and public veterinary services for each département that it was urgent to carry out the euthanasia and destruction of animals belonging to species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease which had arrived in France from the United Kingdom since 1 February 2001. Other susceptible livestock having been in contact with those animals were also concerned.   In accordance with those circulars, on 2 and 3 March 2001 Mr Chagnon’s entire herd of 583 sheep, together with 518 sheep from Mr Fournier’s farm, were culled on the orders of the Prefect.   The ministerial order referred to in the circulars of 27 and 28 February 2001 was made on 7   March 2001. A few days later, the slaughter of the remainder of Mr Fournier’s livestock, i.e. 140 sheep, was ordered. Samples taken from the slaughtered animals did not reveal any infection caused by the foot-and-mouth virus.   The experts estimated the resulting losses at 84,093.93 euros (EUR) for Mr Chagnon and EUR 111,657.47 for Mr Fournier. In April 2001 Mr Fournier received EUR 50,155.72 and Mr   Chagnon EUR 44,438.89 in accordance with the order of 7 March 2001. Their requests for additional compensation were rejected by the Prefect. They then lodged an application with the Administrative Court, challenging the lawfulness of the slaughter and claiming EUR   63,625 and EUR 76,646 in compensation for their losses. In the course of the proceedings, in November 2001, they received additional compensation of EUR   26,663.33 for Mr   Chagnon and EUR 30,093.44 for Mr Fournier.   The Administrative Court took the view that the ministerial order could not retroactively provide a legal basis for the slaughter measures that had been taken before its entry into force, and found the State liable for payment of compensation amounting to EUR   24,259.63 for Mr   Chagnon and EUR 27,731.37 for Mr Fournier .   That decision was quashed in 2004 on an appeal by the Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fishing and Rural Affairs. The Administrative Court of Appeal found in particular that the effectiveness of the campaign to halt the foot-and-mouth epidemic depended on the speediness of the protective measures taken by the authorities, which had moreover enabled the number of slaughtered animals to be limited to 50,000 in France compared to 6   million in the United Kingdom. It further held that, in those exceptional circumstances, it had been legal for the authorities to take the necessary measures of protection, on the basis of the Countryside Code and for a very limited period, without waiting for the signing of the joint interministerial order provided for by that code, which required an incompressible time-frame that was incompatible with the urgent need to respond to an epidemic in a neighbouring country.   The Conseil d’État dismissed further appeals lodged by the applicants.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complained that measures for the slaughter of sheep, taken in 2001 by the authorities in connection with the prevention of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, had been illegal, and that the compensation paid to them had been insufficient.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 October 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   It was not in dispute that the measures in question constituted an interference with the applicants’ enjoyment of their property. The Court took the view that the slaughter of sheep, which had been a preventive measure to avoid the foot-and-mouth epidemic, fell within the control of the use of property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The measures had been taken on the basis of ministerial circulars, whose adoption, without waiting for the signing of an interministerial order as provided for in the Countryside Code, had been justified by the highly contagious nature of foot-and-mouth disease and the risk of the epidemic spreading to France. Having regard to the risks existing at the time, the courts’ interpretation of legislation and case-law had not been arbitrary.   It had not been disputed that the measures in question pursued a legitimate aim in accordance with the general interest. In addition, they had only concerned one category of animal and had been limited to the time necessary to prevent foot-and-mouth disease and preserve public health and food safety – areas in which the State had a certain discretion.   Moreover, the compensation rules applied to the applicants had guaranteed equal compensation for all breeders affected by the slaughter measures. In addition, the sums paid to Mr Chagnon and Mr Fournier had amounted to 84.5% and 72%, respectively, of the experts’ evaluation.   The Court thus found that the measures in question were not disproportionate in the light of the aim pursued. It accordingly held that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Emma Hellyer (telephone : +33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone : + 33 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] Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.