Information Note on the Court’s case-law 49
January 2003
Geffre v. France (dec.) - 51307/99
Decision 23.1.2003 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Possibility for landowner to challenge an administrative decision concerning his land which has been published but not served on him in person: inadmissible
Facts – In 1974, the applicant purchased several plots of land, not designated for building, on the Ile de Ré (Charente-Maritime), and used them as caravan sites. A ministerial order of 23 October 1979 placed the whole of the Ile de Ré on the list of monuments or sites to be conserved or protected in the general public interest. In December 1979 and January 1980, this order was twice published in two newspapers distributed in the communes concerned; it was also posted outside the town hall in Flotte de Ré and published in the compendium of administrative decisions and measures in the département of Charente-Maritime. One of the effects of inclusion on the list was a prohibition, provided for in the Town Planning Code, on camping and the parking of caravans, unless special exemption was granted. In 1996, caravans were found parked on the applicant’s land on the Ile de Ré, although this land had been included on the list by the ministerial order of 23 October 1979, and was thus subject to the prohibition on camping/caravanning. The applicant was charged in the criminal court with parking caravans unlawfully on a listed site. He was fined and ordered to restore the site to its original condition, having objected unsuccessfully that the authorities had broken the law by failing to give individual notice of the 1979 listing order. This sentence was upheld on appeal, and a further appeal to the Court of Cassation was also dismissed.
Law – Article 6 § 1: French law allowed the applicant, not only to contest the lawfulness of the disputed order in the administrative courts and seek compensation for the damage caused him by the prohibition on parking caravans on his site, but also to apply to the authorities for an exemption. The question which needs answering is whether the rules on exercise of these remedies, and particularly – in view of the publicity arrangements – the time-limits for using them, ensured effective access to a court, as required by Article 6. The disputed order in this case had been published in two newspapers (one of them a daily) circulated in the commune where the applicant’s property lay, had been posted outside the town hall near his place of residence, and had also been published in the compendium of administrative decisions and measures of the département in whose principal town he lived. Collective publication has undeniable advantages; it stabilises the legal situation and simplifies the formalities for implementing measures like this, particularly when – as in this case – they apply to extensive holdings and numerous owners. Moreover, the French Government had reacted to the judgment given in the De Geouffre de la Pradelle case (judgment of 16 December 1992) by introducing a new system for collective publication of all listing orders. In its Resolution DH(2000)43 of 10 April 2000 on this judgment, the Committee of Ministers stated that the French Government had thus fulfilled its obligations under the former Article 53 of the Convention. The collective publication practised in this case constituted a coherent system, striking a fair balance between the interests of the authorities and those of the persons concerned; specifically, it gave the latter a clear, practical and effective possibility of contesting the administrative measure in question. This being so, the applicant’s right of access to a court was not disproportionately restricted.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
© 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