CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 26 mai 1999

.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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10BA16DF { width:8.64pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s660DD4FA { width:21.3pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s1390230D { width:17.97pt; display:inline-block } .sA087DB47 { width:19.3pt; display:inline-block } .sF9DFD290 { width:334.24pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     293   26.5.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar     HEARING IN THE CASES OF ZIELINSKI & PRADAL v. FRANCE and GONZALEZ & OTHERS v. FRANCE   Wednesday 26 May 1999 at 9 a.m.     The applicants     The cases concern applications (application nos.   24846/94 and 34165/96) brought by eleven French nationals: one by Benoît Zielinski and Patrick Pradal (born in 1954 and 1955) and the others by Jeanine Gonzalez,   Martine Mary, Anita Delaquerriere, Guy Schreiber, Monique Kern, Pascal Gontier, Nicole Schreiber, Josiane Memeteau and Claude Cossuta (born, respectively, in 1956, 1953, 1955, 1948, 1949, 1957, 1950, 1954 and 1957). The applicants all live in France and are employed by a social security organisation in Alsace-Moselle.   Summary of the facts     On 28 March 1953 the management of the social security organisations in the Strasbourg region signed an agreement with the relevant trade unions for the introduction of a "particular difficulties allowance" ( indemnité de difficultés particulières or " IDP "). The manner in which the agreement was applied gave rise to problems; judicial proceedings were brought by other social security staff members; and the applicants also lodged industrial tribunal applications.     On 2 July 1991 Colmar Industrial Tribunal found in favour of Mrs Gonzalez and her co-applicants. Colmar Sickness Benefit Office appealed, as did the regional Director of Health and Social Affairs.     In judgments of 4 December 1991 and 21 October 1992, Metz Industrial Tribunal found in favour of Mr Zielinski and Mr Pradal. Those judgments were upheld by Metz Court of Appeal on 19 and 20 April 1993. The préfet and the regional Director of Health and Social Affairs appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation.     Parallel proceedings brought by other staff members from the sickness benefit offices covered by the 1953 agreement had meanwhile led to a Court of Cassation judgment remitting those cases to Besançon Court of Appeal, which gave judgment on 13 October 1993, holding that the allowance should be calculated in a manner favourable to the claimants. However, by way of an amendment inserting an extra section (section 85) into Law no. 94-43 of 18 January 1994, Parliament ratified the position taken in the courts by the representative of the State and the Sickness Benefit Offices as to the proper rate of the IDP – and did so with retrospective effect. On 13 January 1994 the Conseil constitutionnel declared that section 85 was compatible with the French Constitution. In the light of the new legislation, the Court of Cassation quashed the Court of Appeal judgments that had been given in favour of Mr   Zielinski and Mr Pradal and Colmar Court of Appeal reversed the tribunal decisions given in favour of Mrs Gonzalez and her co-applicants.   Complaints     The applicants complain that the intervention of the State – in the form of retrospective legislation – in court proceedings concerning them breached the principle of equality of arms and impaired the fairness of the proceedings. With the exception of Mr   Zielinski and Mr Pradal, they also complain of the length of the proceedings. They rely on Article   6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.   Procedure     Mr Zielinski and Mr Pradal’s application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 July 1994. Having found the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 9 September 1997 in which it established the facts and expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and that no separate issue arose under Article 13 (unanimously). It referred the case to the Court on 29 October 1997. The French Government also brought the case before the Court.     The applications of Mrs Gonzalez and her co-applicants were lodged with the Commission on 19 August and 9 September 1996. Having found the applications admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 21 October 1998 in which it established the facts and expressed the opinion that Article   6 § 1 had been violated and that no separate issue arose under Article 13 (unanimously). It referred the case to the Court on 9 December 1998.   Composition of the Court     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the cases were transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998, the date of entry into force of the Protocol. They will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows: Luzius Wildhaber   (Swiss), President , Luigi Ferrari Bravo   (Italian) [1] , Lucius Caflisch   (Swiss) [2] , Jerzy Makarczyk   (Polish), Willi Fuhrmann   (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert   (Czech), Marc Fischbach   (Luxemburger), Boštjan Zupančič   (Slovenian), Nina Vajić   (Croatian), John Hedigan   (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen   (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska   (FYROMacedonia), Tudor Pantiru   (Moldovan), Egils Levits   (Latvian), Kristaq Traja   (Albanian), Snejana Botoucharova   (Bulgarian), Judges , Alain Bacquet   (French), ad hoc Judge , Rait Maruste   (Estonian), Substitute Judge ,   and also Maud de   Boer-Buquicchio , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:     Ronny Abraham , Agent ,       Pierre Boussaroque, counsel       Emmanuelle Ducos, counsel .   Applicants:     Hélène Masse-Dessen , counsel .     The European Commission of Human Rights will be represented by Marek Nowicki assisted by Marie-Thérèse Schoepfer .     After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.     Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Roderick Liddell Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91 [1] Judge elected in respect of San Marino [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein