CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 avril 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE37FF279 { width:144.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEE962E5F { width:108.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA8DAFCE7 { width:132.82pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     201   16.4.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] :   SECTION 2   (1)     S.A. Dangeville v. France (application no. 36677/97)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, S.A. Dangeville, is a company of insurance brokers whose business activity was subject to value added tax (VAT). It paid 292,816 French francs in VAT on the business it had conducted in 1978. The provisions of the Sixth Directive of the Council of the European Communities, which were applicable from 1 January 1978, exempted from VAT “insurance and reinsurance transactions, including related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents”. On 30 June 1978 the French State was notified of the Ninth Directive of the Council of the European Communities, which gave France extra time in which to implement the provisions of Article 13 B (a) of the Sixth Directive of 1977. Nonetheless, as it was not of retrospective effect, the Sixth Directive was applicable from 1 January to 30 June 1978.   The applicant, relying on the Sixth Directive, sought a refund of the VAT paid for the year 1978. The Administrative Court and subsequently the Conseil d’Etat dismissed its claim on the ground, among other things, that a Directive could not be directly invoked against a provision of national law.   An administrative direction of 2   January 1986 annulled the supplementary tax assessments levied against insurance brokers who had not paid VAT for that period.   The applicant lodged a second application, which was ultimately dismissed by a further judgment of the Conseil d’Etat of 30 October 1996 holding that the applicant could not seek to obtain by way of an action for damages satisfaction which had been refused it in the tax proceedings in a decision which had become res judicata . However, in a judgment of the same date concerning an application brought by another company, whose business activity and claims were initially identical to those of the applicant, the Conseil d’Etat departed from its earlier decision and upheld that company’s claim for a refund by the State of sums wrongly paid. The applicant alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that it was a creditor of the State but had been definitively deprived of the possibility of enforcing its debt by the decisions of the Conseil d’Etat dismissing its claims. It also complained of a breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on the ground that companies which had not paid VAT had been in an advantageous position compared to taxpayers who had spontaneously filed their VAT returns and that another company had benefited from a departure from the earlier decision and obtained a VAT refund despite the fact that their situations were identical.   The Court noted that on both its applications the applicant was a creditor of the State on account of the VAT wrongly paid for the period 1 January to 30 June 1978 and that in any event it had at least a legitimate expectation of being able to obtain a refund. The Court found that the interference with the applicant’s possessions did not satisfy the requirements of the general interest and that the interference with the applicant company’s enjoyment of its property was disproportionate because its inability to enforce its debt against the State and the lack of domestic proceedings providing a sufficient remedy to protect its right to respect for enjoyment of its possessions upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.   It concluded unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint based on Article 14 combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant company 21,734.49 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 21,190.41 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).   (2)     Stés Colas Est and Others v. France (no. 37971/97)                          Violation of Article 8 The applicants are Colas Est, Colas Ouest and Sacer, which are road construction companies in Colmar, Mérignac and Boulogne-Billancourt (France). They were investigated in 1985 as part of an administrative inquiry in which investigators from the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Repression of Fraud investigated 56 companies simultaneously and seized several thousand documents from which they ascertained that illicit agreements had been made in respect of certain contracts. The investigating officers entered the premises of the applicant companies pursuant to the provisions of Order no. 45-1484 of 30 June 1945. On the basis of the seized documents the Minister for the Economy, Finance and Privatisation referred the matter to the Competition Council, which fined the applicants for engaging in illegal practices. The applicants appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal challenging the lawfulness of the searches and seizures, which had been effected without a warrant. The Court of Appeal fined the first applicant five million francs, the second applicant three million francs and the third applicant six million francs. The Court of Cassation dismissed their appeals.   Relying on Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for home), the applicants submitted that the searches and seizures, which had been conducted by the investigating officers without any supervision or restriction, amounted to trespass against their “home”.   The Court held that the time had come to acknowledge that in certain circumstances the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention could be construed as including the right to respect for a company’s head office, branch office or place of business. The Court found that the investigators had entered the applicants’ premises without a warrant, which amounted to trespass against their “home”. The relevant legislation and practice did not provide adequate or sufficient guarantees against abuse. The Court considered that at the material time the relevant authority had had very wide powers and that it had intervened without a magistrate’s warrant and without a senior police officer being present. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded each applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 6,700 to Colas Est, EUR 10,200 to Colas Ouest and EUR 4,400 to Sacer for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).   (3)     Ouendeno v. France (no. 39996/98)                                             Violation of Article 6 § 1 Alexis Ouendeno, a French national born in 1947 and living in Vitry-sur-Seine, was the subject of a number of sets of disciplinary proceedings before the Medical Association. Following complaints lodged by the Ile-de-France Health Insurance Office, he was permanently debarred from treating subscribers to the social-security scheme because he had been prescribing his patients slimming products which were deemed to be dangerous and liable to endanger their health. He appealed against that decision to the Conseil d’Etat , which dismissed his appeal on 30   January 2002. The applicant complained of the excessive length of the proceedings.   The Court noted that the proceedings began on 18 September 1991, when the Essonne Health Insurance Office lodged a complaint, and ended with a Conseil d’Etat judgment on 30   January 2002 (a period of ten years and over four months). It concluded unanimously that that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).   (4)     Seguin v. France (no. 42400/98)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 Paul Seguin is a French national. He was born in 1935 and lives in Pantin. He, like 166 other employees, was made redundant. He successfully challenged his redundancy in the administrative courts. He applied to the Industrial Tribunal for reappointment to his former post. The proceedings ended with his application being dismissed by the Conseil d’Etat on 21   January 1998. He complained of the length of the proceedings to which he was a party (twelve years and nine months before five levels of jurisdiction).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French).   SECTION 4   (5)     Goc v. Poland (no. 48001/99)       Violation Article 6 § 1 Stanisław Goc, now deceased, was the co-owner of a plot of land and a house in Warsaw. On 23 September 1980 one of the other co-owners filed an application for division of the property. Notwithstanding several expert reports, decisions and appeals the proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw-Praga District Court. The applicant complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of the proceedings, which have lasted 21 years, six months and three days, of which the Court can take into consideration eight years, ten months and 26 days [2] .   The Court accepted that the applicant’s son, T.G., was entitled to pursue the application, the applicant having died on 2 December 2000. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him EUR 5,569 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] The period of time after 1 May 1993 when Poland recognised the right of individual petition.