CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 13 février 2003

.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 } .sC38A71A9 { width:66.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE1E781D { width:141.47pt; display:inline-block } .s1D1A0C2D { width:125.46pt; display:inline-block } .s880F5553 { width:119.46pt; 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     087   13.2.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING FRANCE AND TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1] (All four are in French only.)   Section 2   (1)     Bertuzzi v. France (application no. 36378/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Rémi Bertuzzi is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives in Saint-Laurent.   Wishing to sue a lawyer who, he alleged, had given him bad advice, the applicant applied for legal aid to Metz tribunal de grande instance . Legal aid was granted on 1 June 1995.   Three lawyers in succession appointed by the chairman of the bar withdrew from the case on account of their personal links with the defendant lawyer. In November 1995 the applicant asked the legal aid office and the chairman of the bar to assign a fourth lawyer to the case. In March 1997 the chairman of the bar informed the applicant that the award of legal aid made in the decision of 1 June 1995 had lapsed and that he would have to submit a new application.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that no lawyer had represented him under the legal aid scheme in the proceedings he had sought to institute.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant had been granted legal aid for a type of case in which legal representation was not compulsory. The legal aid office had therefore considered that professional assistance would be of crucial importance in the proceedings. In the Court’s view, the relevant authorities, when notified of the withdrawal of the various lawyers, should have provided a replacement so that the applicant could benefit from effective legal assistance. The Court considered that the possibility of conducting his own case in proceedings against a legal practitioner had not afforded the applicant the right of access to a court in conditions allowing him the effective enjoyment of equality of arms, a principle inherent in the concept of a fair hearing. The Court accordingly held unanimously that the applicant had not had effective access to a tribunal, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and awarded him 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.   (2)     Erkanlı v. Turkey (no. 37721/97)   Friendly settlement Ahmet Erkanlı is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul.   On 19 January 1995 the daily newspaper Özgur Ülke (Free Country) published a cartoon signed by the applicant showing a man in uniform with a burning torch in his hand standing in front of some burned-out houses and saying to peasant bystanders “Don’t wait for the State to do everything for you, damn it! Burn your village yourselves... You know the State can’t see to everything, don’t you?”   The applicant and the publisher of the newspaper were prosecuted under Article 159 § 1 of the Criminal Code for insulting and vilifying the State through the medium of a publication. Özgur Ülke ceased to appear while the proceedings were pending. In a judgment of 22   September 1995 the Assize Court found both defendants guilty as charged, sentenced them to ten months’ imprisonment and commuted the publisher’s sentence to a fine. The Assize Court accepted that allegations that some villages had been torched during military operations had already been published, and raised in the National Assembly, but held that the vivid image in the offending cartoon had insulted and vilified the State.   In a judgment of 16 January 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions.   Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complained of an infringement of his freedom of expression on account of the fact that he had been convicted of a criminal offence for drawing a cartoon.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR 8,300 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. In addition, the Turkish Government have made the following declaration: “The Court’s rulings against Turkey in cases involving prosecutions under the criminal law on charges similar in substance to those brought against Mr Erkanlı clearly show that Turkish law and practice urgently need to be brought into line with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention. This is also reflected in the interference underlying the facts of the present case. The Government refer to the individual measures set out in the Interim Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 23 July 2001 (ResDH(2001)106), which they will apply to the circumstances of cases such as the instant one.”   (3)     Chevrol v. France (no. 49636/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Yamina Chevrol is a French national who was born in Algeria in 1942 and lives in Aubagne.   Having qualified as a doctor in Algeria in 1969 after graduating from the University of Algiers, she applied to be registered as a member of the Bouches-du-Rhône ordre des médecins (Medical Association) in 1987. Her application was unsuccessful and she reapplied several times. In the context of one such application in 1995 she relied on the Government Declarations of 19 March 1962 on Algeria (known as the Evian Agreements), which provide, among other things, for mutual recognition of qualifications awarded in Algeria and France. The département , regional and national councils of the ordre des médecins refused her applications. The applicant appealed to the Conseil d’Etat , which referred a preliminary question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asking it to submit observations on her appeal. The Ministry expressed the view that the provisions of the Evian Agreements could not be regarded as having legal force, because the condition of reciprocity laid down in Article 55 of the French Constitution had not been satisfied. In a judgment of 9 April 1999 the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It pointed out that it was not for the administrative courts to rule on the conditions for the implementation of a treaty and, on the basis of the observations produced by the Ministry, held that the applicant was not entitled to rely on those provisions.   In a decision of 12 April 1999 the Council of the ordre des médecins for the département of Bouches-du-Rhône registered the applicant as a member of the ordre .   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of interference by the executive with the Conseil d’Etat ’s judicial powers. She argued that the Ministry’s intervention had been crucial to the outcome of her case and that she had had no means of challenging it.   The Court considered that the applicant, who was still entitled to claim to be a “victim” for the purposes of the Convention, could assert on arguable grounds that French law afforded her the right to practise medicine in France.   The Court noted that the Conseil d’Etat ’s practice of referring preliminary questions for interpretation meant that, when the administrative court was called upon to give a ruling on the conditions governing the implementation and reciprocity of an international treaty, it had to consult the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the matter and abide by his opinion. In the Court’s view, that practice, as established in the Conseil d’Etat ’s case-law, required the administrative court to rely completely on an authority representing the executive for a solution to the problem before it, and to endorse the opinion of that authority without subjecting it to any criticism or cross-examination. The Court further observed that the Ministry’s intervention, which had been decisive for the outcome of the court proceedings, had not been open to challenge by the applicant.   In those circumstances, the applicant could not be considered to have had access to a tribunal which had, or had accepted, sufficient jurisdiction to examine all the factual and legal issues relevant to the determination of the dispute. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s case had not been heard by a “tribunal” with full jurisdiction and held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It awarded the applicant EUR 17,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   Section 3   (4)     Louerat v. France (no. 44964/98)   Violations Article 6 § 1 Maurice and Christiane Louerat are two French nationals who were born in 1944 and 1946 and live in Paris. They were formerly the managers of three companies. Relying on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained of the length of criminal proceedings brought against them following a complaint by the tax authorities. They asserted that the proceedings in question had begun on 7 July 1987, when searches and seizures were carried out, and had ended with a judgment of the Court of Cassation on 28 May 1998. They further complained of the length of four sets of administrative proceedings to which they had been parties and which concerned 15 applications.   The Court considered that the criminal proceedings had begun on 19 February 1991, when the public prosecutor had applied for an investigation to be opened, referring to the applicants by name, and had ended with the Court of Cassation’s judgment on 28 May 1998. They had therefore lasted seven years and nearly four months for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to the length of the various sets of administrative proceedings, the Court noted that they had lasted either seven or ten years for one or two levels of jurisdiction. It considered that they had not satisfied the reasonable-time requirement and held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded each applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   ***   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.