CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 24 septembre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     449   24.9.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar Mifsud v. France declared inadmissible   In a decision of 11 September 2002, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights declared the case of Mifsud v. France (application n°   57220/00) inadmissible.   The decision, which is available in English and in French, can be found on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Principal Facts   By an application registered on 27 May 1994 Yves Mifsud - a French national, born in 1941 and living in Eze (France) - brought proceedings in the Nice tribunal de grande instance for the repayment of penalties ordered against him for non-compliance with a court order. In a letter of 26 July 1994 the public prosecutor at that court informed the applicant’s lawyer that his application would shortly be brought before the court.   The applicant sent reminders to the Nice tribunal de grande instance on 18 April, 10   September, 20 November 1996 and 27 December 1997. In a letter of 25 April 1998 he referred the matter to the Minister of Justice and, on 18 August 1998, he was informed that the Legal Services Department had referred his case to the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal so that it “would not suffer any unjustified delay”.   On 16 March 2001 the Nice public prosecutor’s office wrote to the applicant inviting him to bring proceedings himself against the municipality of Eze. Accordingly, on 15 January 2002 the applicant summoned the mayor of Eze before the tribunal de grande instance for a hearing on 20 March 2002. At that hearing the court noted that the mayor had failed to appear and asked the applicant to issue a further summons for a hearing in May 2002.   Complaints   The applicant complained mainly of an infringement of his right to have his case heard within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Decision of the Court [1] The Court noted that the applicant had failed to submit his complaint of the length of the proceedings to the domestic courts first in the form of an action for damages under Article L.   781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation [2] . It concluded from this that he had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and that this part of the application had to be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.   The Court reiterated that in the case of Giummarra and Others v. France (n°   61166/00, decision of 12 June 2001) it had held that, having regard to the developments in the domestic case-law, an application under Article L.   781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation provided a remedy for an alleged violation of the right to have a case heard within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention where the proceedings in question had ended at domestic level, and had pointed out that by 20 September 1999 this remedy had acquired the requisite degree of legal certainty for the purposes of Article 35   §   1 of the Convention. In the present case the Court held that the same principle applied where the proceedings in question were pending at domestic level at the date on which the application was lodged with the Court.   Accordingly, any complaint based on the length of judicial proceedings which was lodged with the Court – as in this case – after 20 September 1999 without having first been submitted to the domestic courts under Article L. 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation was inadmissible, regardless of the stage reached in the domestic proceedings.   ***   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]     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.   [2]     “The State shall be under an obligation to compensate for damage caused by a malfunctioning of the system of justice. This liability shall be incurred only in respect of gross negligence or a denial of justice”.