CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 février 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFA9FC904 { width:239.56pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC7A857D { width:137.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   058 03.02.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland and France   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland (application no. 50230/99) The applicants, Ari Kalevi Laukkanen and Jukka Manninen, are Finnish nationals. Mr   Laukkanen was born in 1953 and lives at Riihimäki. Mr Manninen was born in 1955 and lives at Lahti.   On 10 September 1997, on the evidence of a police officer, they were found guilty by the Lahti District Court of the unauthorised use of a vehicle. Mr Laukkanen was sentenced to 60   days’ and Mr Manninen to six months’ imprisonment.   The applicants appealed. They requested an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal or a retrial in the District Court and sought disclosure of the identity of the other police officers on the scene and their attendance to give evidence. In his observations to the Court of Appeal, the public prosecutor gave the names of the police officers but argued that they should not be called as witnesses, as their statements contained no information on the unauthorised use of the vehicle. The applicants lodged written submissions in reply.   On 29 September 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ conviction after noting among other matters that they had failed to state what they intended to prove by calling the officers concerned. The Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by the applicants.   The applicants complained that they had been unable to defend themselves, as the courts had refused to require key eyewitnesses to attend and submit to cross-examination. They also complained of the Court of Appeal’s refusal to hold a hearing or to order a retrial in the District Court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that although the police officers in respect of whom the applicants had sought witness summonses were not heard by the Court of Appeal, they were contacted by the public prosecutor, who questioned them unofficially. The applicants were permitted to reply to the public prosecutor’s observations, in which the identity of the witnesses and details of his conversation with them were given. The applicants’ requests for witness summonses to be issued was rejected, as they had failed to state what they intended to prove by this witness evidence or its relevance to the outcome of the case.   In these circumstances, the Court could not conclude that the proceedings were not adversarial or that the national courts had exceeded their margin of appreciation for determining the admissibility of evidence and assessing it. It also noted that the conviction was based on testimony by a witness who had been heard in the District Court in the presence of the applicants and had been tendered for cross-examination.   As a consequence of a Finnish reservation, the applicants could not derive from the Convention any general right to have an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal in order to hear witnesses or for other purposes. Although the reservation did not exempt the Finnish courts from ensuring that witnesses were heard at some stage of the proceedings if fairness so required, the Court found that the proceedings as a whole could not be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 6. Accordingly, it found no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and   3   (d). (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Crochard and 6 Others v. France (nos. 68255/01 to 68261/01) The applicants are seven French nationals: José-Maria Marchal born in 1952 and living at Peray les Combries, Gérard Odant, born in 1945 and living at Mortefontaine, Jean-Louis Crochard, born in 1937 and living at Gonesse, Jean-Pierre Sudey, born in 1937 and living at Villepinte, Gérard Flouret, born in 1939 and living at Gignac, Malamine Sylla, born in 1939 and living at Pontault Combault, and Jean-Pierre Richard, born in 1941 and living at Moussy le Vieux.   The applicants are former employees of the UTA airline. Following UTA’s merger with Air France, they applied to the French courts for a declaration that their remuneration had decreased and that Air France was therefore in breach of undertakings it had given. Their applications were dismissed by the Employment Division of the Court of Cassation on 27   June 2000.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that the procedure in the Court of Cassation was unfair, as the judge rapporteur’s report had not been disclosed to them, although the Advocate General had received a full copy.   Referring to its case-law, the Court reiterated that a failure to disclose to an appellant or his or her advisers the judge rapporteur’s report before the hearing when the Advocate General has been supplied with a copy created an imbalance that was incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them 1,500 euros (EUR) each for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Menher v. France (no. 60546/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Odette Menher, is a French national who was born in 1947 and lives at Mantes-la-Jolie.   She issued proceedings against her employer, the Union nationale des retraités et personnes âgées (National Union of the Retired and Elderly – UNRAP ) for an order terminating her contract of employment and awarding her compensation for breach of contract, on the ground that UNRAP had refused to refer to her as a journalist in her job description. The proceedings were dismissed by the Employment Division of the Court of Cassation on 5 January 2000.   The applicant, who was not represented in the Court of Cassation by a member of the Conseil d’État and Court of Cassation Bar, complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that the tenor of the Advocate General’s submissions had not been disclosed to her and she had not been given an opportunity to reply to them.   Referring to its case-law, the Court reiterated that appellants such as the applicant who were not represented by a member of the Conseil d’État and Court of Cassation Bar were not entitled to disclosure of the Advocate General’s submissions before the hearing or to comment on them. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)     ***   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 Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [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.