CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 28 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 } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s4DC53971 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 592 28.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision     Hubert Caron and Others v. France (application no. 48629/08)   Unanimously:   INADMISSIBILITY OF Application by a group of “CROP DESTRUCTION CAMPAIGNERS” ( faucheurs volontaires ) OF TRANSGENIC corn     Principal facts   The applicants, Mr Hubert Caron, born in 1963 and living in Fonquevillers, Mr Nicolas Duntze, born in 1950 and living in Cruviers Lascours, Mr Guy Harasse, born in 1945 and living in Hudimesnil, Mr Michel Laurent, born in 1947 and living in Chaumont sur Aire, Mr René Louail, born in 1952 and living in Saint Mayeux, Mr Dominique Mace, born in 1976 and living in Rennes, Mr Pierre Machefert, born in 1948 and living in Chermignac, Mr Léon Mertens, born in 1953 and living in Saint Mexant and Ms Geneviève Savigny, born in 1958 and living in Thoard, are French nationals. They are farmers or wine growers and are either supporters or members of the Farmers’ Confederation ( Confédération paysanne ), one of the main French farmers’ unions.   On 23 July 2003 they took part in an operation to “neutralise” [1] plots of genetically modified corn plants in Guyancourt, in the Yvelines (France). This was part of a campaign by the “Crop Destruction Campaigners” ( Faucheurs volontaires ) collective, a movement opposed to the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in open fields.   They were committed for trial at the Versailles Criminal Court for destroying, damaging or harming another’s property, while acting in a group. On 12 January 2006 the Versailles Criminal Court acquitted them, upholding their submission that they had acted “from necessity” (on account of the “current and certain threat posed to farmers and consumers” from the spread of modified genes) and had no judicial means of obtaining satisfaction. The decision was set aside, however, on 22 March 2007 by the Versailles Court of Appeal, which sentenced the applicants to three months’ imprisonment, suspended, and fined them 1,000 euros each. Appeals on points of law by the applicants were dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 27 March 2008.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained that GMOs interfered with their health and their environment, and that their criminal conviction for tearing up transgenic corn plants – an operation which had, they alleged, been undertaken in the context of the debate surrounding GMOs – was unfair. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they also complained of an interference with the right of property of traditional and organic farmers as a result of contamination by GMOs being cultivated in other fields.   The application was lodged on 26 September 2008.   The decision on admissibility was given on 29 June 2010 by a seven-judge Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   With regard to the part of the complaint relating to an alleged interference with health and the environment, the Court reiterated that the Convention did not permit individuals to complain against a law simply because they felt, without having been directly affected by it, that it contravened the Convention. Mr Caron and the other applicants had clearly stated that they had acted essentially to defend the collective interest and had not explained how they had been personally affected by the OGMs being grown on the plots of land that they had “neutralised”. They did not live in the vicinity of the plots of land in question, which they had chosen for practical reasons (accessibility, etc.). They could not therefore be regarded as victims, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of the alleged violations.   Regarding the part of the complaint relating to the applicants’ criminal conviction, the Court pointed out that neither Article 2, nor Article 8 could be used to relieve them of their criminal responsibility for criminal acts.   With regard, lastly, to their complaint relating to property rights, the Court noted that the applicants had complained generally about the spreading of GMOs onto traditional and organic crops without establishing that their own crops or vines had been directly affected, which, moreover, were not located near the plots that had been neutralised. Having regard to the conclusions reached in respect of Articles 2 and 8 (above), the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 either.   The application was accordingly declared inadmissible (Article 35 of the Convention).     ****     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   Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) 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) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) 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] Action consisting in removing the male and female flowers to prevent any spreading.