CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 février 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF7C3F135 { width:50.78pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   070 12.2.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment in a case concerning France   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final [1] . (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Morel v. France (application no. 43284/98)   No violation of Article 6 § 3 (d)   The applicant, Hubert Morel, is a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Villeneuve La Garenne.   He managed construction companies which he had set up to build premises for the 1992 Winter Olympics. The companies were unable to complete the work in the allotted time, as subsidies they had been relying on were not received. The Olympic Games Organisation Committee, which had awarded the contracts, suspended payments and the companies went into administration.   In 1994, following a series of complaints, the applicant was charged with various offences under employment legislation. He was found guilty on most of the counts and given a two- year prison sentence, one year of which was suspended, by Albertville Criminal Court. He appealed and sought, among other things, an order requiring the judicial administrators who had been put in charge of running the companies to attend the hearing. Chambéry Court of Appeal dismissed that application, upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, 14 months of which were suspended. The applicant appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation, which held that he had forfeited his right of appeal, as he had failed to surrender to custody and had not obtained exemption from that requirement.   The applicant complained that the forfeiture of his right of appeal for failure to surrender to custody had infringed his right to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He further alleged a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) in that he had been unable to obtain the attendance of witnesses crucial to his defence. Lastly, he submitted that the obligation to surrender to custody under French legislation was contrary to Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The Court reiterated that having regard to the importance of the final review carried out by the Court of Cassation in criminal matters, forfeiture of the right of appeal was a particularly severe sanction affecting the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6. The fact that appellants could request exemption from that requirement could not alter that state of affairs. Consequently, the Court found that there had been an unreasonable interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As regards the applicant’s complaint that he had not been able to obtain the attendance of crucial witnesses, the Court found that he had not shown that their testimony would have provided new evidence of relevance to the case. Nor was there any evidence that his right to a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 had not been complied with. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (d).   The Court found that the complaints of violations of Articles 5 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention formed an integral part of the complaint under Article 6 § 1, so that no separate examination of them was required.   It further held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded him 1,933 euros for costs and expenses.     ***   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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.