Information Note on the Court’s case-law 15
February 2000
Association des amis de Saint-Raphael et de Fréjus and Others (dec.) - 45053/98
Decision 29.2.2000 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Appeals lodged by association to challenge building permits: Article 6 inapplicable
Criminal charge
Appeals lodged by association to challenge building permits: inadmissible
The object of the applicant association was “the protection of the environment, quality of life [and] aesthetic character” of Saint-Raphaël and Fréjus. The other applicants were all members of that association. The said association was against the creation of a special planning area (SPA) for the realisation of a construction project for a tourist complex near Saint-Raphaël. The applicant association had been unsuccessful in legal proceedings in the administrative courts, in particular in the Conseil d’Etat, against the ministerial decree setting up the SPA, the prefectoral decision approving the development plan of the SPA and several municipal decisions granting building permits to the promoters. The application related to three sets of proceedings for annulling some of these building permits. In the first set of these proceedings, the Conseil d’Etat ordered the applicant association to pay the irrecoverable costs of the promoter who had been granted the planning permission.
Inadmissible under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The conditions under Article 34 relating to the status of victim were such that each applicant had to be able to show that he or she was directly concerned by the alleged violation or violations. An association such as the first applicant could therefore not claim to be itself a victim of the measures which infringed its members’ rights under the Convention: incompatible ratione personae.
As for the other applicants, the facts show that only the applicant association had been a party to the legal proceedings and, in this instance, had not raised the issue that the granting of the building permits had infringed the rights of the other applicants as safeguarded by the above-mentioned articles of the Convention. Therefore, domestic remedies had not been exhausted: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The association’s object was the defence of the general interest. As for the other applicants, they had not been individual parties to the legal proceedings and the association had not raised the question of respect for their individual rights in the courts. The mere fact that the applicant association had been ordered to pay the irrecoverable costs in the first set of proceedings did not bring them within the scope of this Article. Moreover, there were no indications that this order had been made to sanction the association for a vexatious action. Even if this had been the case, this sanction would have been purely procedural and would not have involved a determination of civil rights or obligations. Furthermore, such a sanction could not have given rise to the issue of access to the civil courts as the proceedings in which it had been ordered fell outside the scope of Article 6. Finally, in general terms, when a court ordered a sanction for vexatious proceedings, it was not making a decision on the merits of a criminal charge. In the light of all of these elements taken together, Article 6 did not apply in this case: incompatible ratione materiae.
© 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