CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBD74C00D { width:60.1pt; display:inline-block } .sB506F85D { width:133.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9EE91CE9 { width:74.14pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     497   15.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France and Spain   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (All are in French only.)   Section 2   (1)     Ottomani v. France (application no. 49857/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Henri Ottomani is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives at Saint Cyr sur Mer.   On 16 June 1992 he was charged with fraud after a criminal complaint had been lodged against a person or persons unknown. On 13 November 1996 he was convicted and sentenced by Belfort Criminal Court to two-years’ imprisonment, 15 months of which were suspended. The sentence was increased by the court of appeal. In a judgment of 26 November 1998, which was served on 17 December 1998, the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on points of law.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the length of the criminal proceedings (which had lasted just over six years and five months).   The Court noted that the investigation stage alone had taken more than four years and that there had been a period of more than two years during which no steps had been taken in the investigation. The delays in the proceedings had not been attributable to the conduct of the applicant or the civil parties. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses.   (2)     Vieziez v. France (no. 52116/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Jacques Vieziez is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives at Ruitz.   In April 1987 he received a supplementary tax assessment which he challenged on 6   September 1989 in the Lille Administrative Court. The proceedings ended on 25 February 1999 when he was served with the judgment of the Conseil d’État dismissing his appeal on points of law.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the length of those proceedings (which had lasted ten years and 19 days).   The Court noted that the Government had officially acknowledged that the principal cause of delays in the proceedings had been the overloading of the administrative courts. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 6,100 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 80 for costs and expenses.   Section 4   (3)     Canete de Goni v. Spain (no. 55782/00)   No violation Article 6 § 1   The applicant, Maria del Carmen Cañete de Goñi, is a Spanish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Jerez.   She is a history and geography teacher. She passed a competitive examination and obtained a post as a certified teacher. However, following an application by some unsuccessful candidates, the Andalusia High Court gave judgment on 31 March 1995 declaring the competitive examination null and void, whereupon the applicant lost her post. She lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, complaining that the Andalusia High Court had not summoned her to appear as a third party having an interest in the proceedings. In a judgment of 14 September 1999 the Constitutional Court dismissed her appeal. It held that the applicant had learned of the proceedings from non-judicial sources so that the failure to summon her to appear did not infringe Article 24 of the Constitution (right to a fair trial).   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that she had not had a fair trial because she had not been summoned to appear and give evidence in her capacity as an interested party in the proceedings before the Andalusia High Court. That was particularly unfair, she argued, in that the outcome of those proceedings had caused her undeniable damage, namely the loss of her teaching post.   The Court noted that the parties did not agree on the interpretation of section 64 of the Administrative Courts Act, which provided that applications for judicial review had to be served personally on interested parties, who should be summoned to appear. In that connection, it reiterated that it was for the domestic courts to interpret procedural rules. Under the Constitutional Court’s case-law a failure to summon an interested party to appear would constitute a violation of the right of access to a court if that party held a legitimate right or interest and was identifiable and there had been a material breach of his or her defence rights. The High Court had found that the last of those conditions had not been satisfied.   The Court noted that the Constitutional Court had dismissed the applicant’s amparo appeal in line with its settled case-law. That case-law, which had been published and was accessible, supplemented the wording of section 64 of the Administrative Courts Act and was sufficiently clear to allow the applicant to decide on her course of action.   That interpretation of the domestic law did not appear arbitrary or to impair the very essence of the right of access to a court. Consequently, the Court held by five votes two that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.