Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 98
June 2007
SCM Scanner de l’Ouest Lyonnais and Others v. France - 12106/03
Judgment 21.6.2007 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Equality of arms
Outcome of pending civil litigation affected by statutory amendment favourable to the State and contrary to the applicants' interests: violation
Facts: The applicants are SCM Scanner de l'Ouest Lyonnais and its members, radiologists who all used the same scanner. Scanning was a medical act covered by the Social Security the fee for which should have been classified “Z 90”. However, a ministerial decree changed that classification and an interministerial letter provisionally classified it “Z 19”, substantially reducing the size of the fee. This classification was repeated in several subsequent decrees. The whole procedure was referred to the Conseil d'Etat for examination. The Conseil d'Etat annulled the decree, the above-mentioned letter and the subsequent decrees renewing the impugned classification. The applicants applied to the health insurance funds for reimbursement of the additional amounts due in respect of a certain period as a result of the reinstatement of the “Z 90” rating. When the funds refused to reimburse them they took the matter before the relevant friendly-settlement boards, which confirmed the decision not to reimburse. Meanwhile, a new provision was introduced into the law on Social Security financing validating the measures taken on the basis of the aforesaid decree, interministerial letter and subsequent decrees, without prejudice to final judicial decisions. The Constitutional Council had declared this provision to be in conformity with the Constitution. The applicants reiterated their requests for reimbursement and lodged various applications with the social security tribunal. That tribunal found against them and its judgments were all confirmed on appeal, on the ground that the legal validation measure deprived the applicants of any right to reimbursement. The Court of Cassation rejected their appeal on points of law against the appeal court's decision, stating that the legal provision had been introduced before they lodged their appeal, that it did not constitute interference by the State in proceedings in which it was a party and it did not challenge any final judicial decision.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – The impugned legal provision had expressly excluded final judicial decisions from its scope while at the same time settling once and for all the terms of the dispute, with retrospective effect as there were cases pending before the relevant courts at the time of its entry into force. In conformity with domestic law the applicants had taken preliminary, “administrative” action before several friendly-settlement boards; such preliminary administrative action was mandatory in general litigation involving social security. The Court accordingly considered, unlike the Court of Cassation, that the proceedings had already started when the law was passed, and that the matter at issue was precisely the payment of the additional remuneration concerned. The new legal provision had endorsed the position adopted by the State in pending proceedings, determining the merits of the dispute and rendering any further action vain. The compelling grounds in the general interest, it appeared, were simply the need to preserve the financial equilibrium of the health branch of the mandatory social security scheme. In principle, however, financial reasons alone did not suffice to justify such legislative interference. No correlation had been established between the financial risk invoked and the pending proceedings, the outcome of which had been determined by the new legalising Act. Excluding pending proceedings from the scope of that law would have maintained the equality of arms in those proceedings without preventing the law from achieving its aim, which was to guarantee the future applicability of the impugned ministerial decrees. So the disputed legislative measure, which had determined with final and retrospective effect the merits of the dispute between the applicants and the State before the French courts, had not been justified by compelling grounds in the general interest: violation.
Article 41 – EUR 7,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
© 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