Seris v France - 38208/03 [2010] ECHR 950 (3 June 2010)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the lack of access to a court in that the applicant could not challenge a judicial decision refusing to investigate in proceedings in which he was a civil party, due to shortcomings in the appointment of his officially assigned lawyer (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

This case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings brought against the applicant’s neighbours and to which he was civil party (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court’s finding of a violation was based on shortcomings in the designation of a court-appointed lawyer (late appointment, failure to inform the interested persons, lawyer’s name not recorded in the case-file) that had two consequences for the applicant, namely:

- he had not been in a position to challenge the only document upon which the magistrate’s refusal to investigate had been based;

- he found himself obliged to appeal unassisted against the decision to drop the investigation and through ignorance failed to fulfil certain formal requirements resulting in the appeal’s being declared inadmissible.

In the absence of any causal link with the violation, the European Court rejected the applicant’s complaint that he had suffered pecuniary damage “in view of the time spent repairing judicial errors”. It did however award just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.

Given that the applicant does not seem to be suffering any serious negative consequences of the violation, no other individual measure was considered necessary.

In this case, if the applicant had had the assistance of a court-appointed counsel in the normal way, the violation could have been avoided. Accordingly, it is not the law which is called into question but the way it was applied in this case. Indeed, a Decree of 19/12/1991 provides that the Head of the Bar Association appoints counsel to assist legal-aid clients, and informs the designated counsel and the secretariat of the legal-aid office who immediately informs the client and invite him to contact the lawyer. The name of the lawyer is also mentioned in the case-file.

Given the direct effect of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court in domestic law, the publication of the judgment and its dissemination to the authorities concerned, in particular to the Bar Association, is a sufficient measure.

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	2 000 EUR	-	2 000 EUR
Paid on 11/12/2007

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Seris v France - 38208/03 [2010] ECHR 950 (3 June 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/950.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 950