Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 95
March 2007
Arma v. France - 23241/04
Judgment 8.3.2007 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Inability of the managing director and sole shareholder of a company to challenge an order for its liquidation: violation
Facts: The applicant had set up a company of which she was the manager and sole shareholder. Before long the company was placed under judicial administration, after which a court made an order for the company’s liquidation and appointed a liquidator. An appeal by the applicant against the liquidation order was declared inadmissible on the grounds that the managing director of a company in liquidation had no authority to act on its behalf and that the appeal should have been lodged by an ad hoc representative. The applicant did not appeal on points of law.
Law: Article 35(1) – The solution adopted by the Court of Appeal had been consistent with the established case-law of the Court of Cassation. Accordingly, contrary to the argument of the respondent Government, an appeal on points of law was not an effective remedy required to be used by the applicant.
Access to court: In the judicial liquidation procedure in question, the company had a legal personality separate from that of its manager. The Court therefore had to examine whether the applicant, as the company’s manager, had had an interest in having access to a court in connection with the judicial liquidation of her company.
In her capacity as manager and sole shareholder of the company, the applicant had had a particular interest in its continuity and in the protection of the capital she had invested in it.
The applicant’s intervention in the appeal proceedings would have been in the company’s interests, since she could possibly have enabled it to continue trading or at least could have submitted arguments in favour of continuation.
The applicant could also validly claim a direct personal interest in lodging an appeal, since some serious accusations had been made against her personally and could have had repercussions for her in the future.
In addition, anad hoc representative would not physically have had the time to lodge an appeal on behalf of the company and its manager within the statutory ten-day time-limit for appeal. It was, moreover, in order to ensure better protection of defence rights that the law had been amended (but only after the material time) to grant former managers of companies in judicial liquidation the right to appeal against the liquidation order.
In conclusion, the applicant had an interest in acting in her own name before the European Court of Human Rights – and thus had victim status under Article 34 – and her right of access to a court had been excessively restricted by the decision declaring her appeal inadmissible.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy