Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> EDITIONS PERISCOPE v. FRANCE - 11760/85 [1992] ECHR 43 (26 March 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/43.html
Cite as: [1992] ECHR 43, 14 EHRR 597, (1992) 14 EHRR 597
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
In the case of Editions Périscope v. France*,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance
with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the
relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of
the following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr J. Cremona,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr B. Walsh,
Mr I. Foighel,
Mr R. Pekkanen,
Mr J.M. Morenilla,
Mr F. Bigi,
and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 October 1991 and
26 February 1992,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
* The case is numbered 58/1990/249/380. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since
its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating
applications to the Commission.
** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came
into force on 1 January 1990.
_______________
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission
of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 14 December 1990, within the
three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47
(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an
application (no. 11760/85) against the French Republic lodged with
the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a French limited
company, Editions Périscope, on 20 September 1985.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48
(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby France recognised
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).
The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether
the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of
its obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as regards the
requirement of "reasonable time".
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with
Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant company
stated that it wished to take part in the proceedings and
designated the lawyer who would represent it (Rule 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio
Mr L.-E. Pettiti, the elected judge of French nationality
(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the
President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 21 February 1991,
in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the
names of the other seven members, namely Mr J. Cremona,
Mr F. Matscher, Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Mr R. Macdonald,
Mr I. Foighel, Mr R. Pekkanen and Mr J.M. Morenilla (Article 43 in
fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
Subsequently, Mr F. Bigi and Mr B. Walsh, substitute judges,
replaced Mr Pinheiro Farinha, who had resigned and whose successor
at the Court had taken up his duties before the hearing, and
Mr Macdonald, who was unable to take part in the further
consideration of the case (Rules 2 para. 3, 22 para. 1 and
24 para. 1).
4. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber
(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent
of the French Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the
Commission and the lawyer for the applicant company on the
organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38).
Pursuant to the orders made in consequence, the Registrar received
the memorial of Editions Périscope on 2 May 1991 and the
Government's memorial on 3 May; the applicant company's claims
under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention reached the Registrar
on 21 May.
On 17 July the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar
that the Delegate would submit oral observations.
5. In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took
place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on
21 October 1991. The Court had held a preparatory meeting
beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr J.-P. Puissochet, Director of Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent,
Mr P. Chambu, Legal Affairs Department, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Counsel;
(b) for the Commission
Mr C.L. Rozakis, Delegate;
(c) for the applicant company
Mr P. Colin, avocat, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Puissochet for the Government,
by Mr Rozakis for the Commission and by Mr Colin for the applicant
company, as well as their answers to its questions.
6. The Agent of the Government and the representative of the
applicant company produced several documents on the occasion of the
hearing.
7. On 15 January 1992 the applicant company's representative
communicated to the Registrar a note concerning the application of
Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention, but, having regard to
Rule 50 para. 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decided not to
take cognisance of this document.
AS TO THE FACTS
8. Editions Périscope is a limited company, incorporated under
French law, whose registered office is in Paris. It was founded in
April 1960 for the purpose of creating a review entitled "Périscope
de l'usine et du bureau", which was to analyse new industrial
products and provide an "integrated readers' service". At the time
periodicals of this type were unknown in France.
A. The background to the case
9. On 21 October 1960 the applicant company applied to the Joint
Committee on Press Publications and Press Agencies ("the Joint
Committee") for a certificate of registration for its review in
order to secure the tax concessions and preferential postal charges
accorded to the press.
10. The Joint Committee rejected the application on
8 December 1960 and refused two further applications on
9 February 1961 and 17 January 1964. It did not reply to a fourth,
lodged on 30 June 1970. Although these decisions were equivalent
to decisions having an adverse effect because they were binding on
the administrative authorities, they were not challenged in the
Conseil d'Etat as being ultra vires.
The reason given was always the same: the review was
classified as an advertising organ because it represented a link
between its subscribers and manufacturers for the purposes of a
commercial transaction. It published the technical data furnished
by the manufacturer himself for the articles presented; a reader
interested in a model returned to the head office of Périscope de
l'usine et du bureau a form with the reference of the model in
question; the manufacturer then received this form and sent the
relevant documentation. In fact, in order to obtain the advantages
which it claimed, the review would have had to have devoted at
least a third of its surface to information of general interest or
to provide its readers' service with critical editorial comment.
11. Editions Périscope also submitted two informal requests which
were rejected by the Secretaries General of the Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications (8 April 1961) and of the Joint Committee
(27 October 1966).
It also made various representations to the public authorities
up until 1974, but without success.
12. "Périscope de l'usine et du bureau" ceased to appear in
October 1974 and the company which published it became the subject
of composition proceedings and then went into liquidation.
However, the Paris Commercial Court rescinded its order after the
managing director had agreed to meet the liabilities of the company
out of his personal funds.
13. On 15 March 1976 Editions Périscope submitted a preliminary
application to the Minister for Finance, the Junior Minister for
Posts and Telecommunications and the Junior Minister of the Prime
Minister's office, Spokesman for the Government. It sought
compensation of 200,000,000 francs for the damage which it claimed
to have sustained since 1962 through the fault (faute) of the
public authorities. No reply to the application was forthcoming.
B. Proceedings in the Paris Administrative Court
1. The application
14. On 12 November 1976 Editions Périscope instituted proceedings
in the Paris Administrative Court. It asked the court:
"to allow the ... application and, for the reasons set out
..., order the State to pay it the sum of two hundred million
francs as compensation for the damage which it has sustained
through the faults committed by the public authorities;
in the alternative, to call for an expert opinion in order
to determine the extent of the damage sustained by Editions
Périscope."
2. The investigation
15. The defendant, the Prime Minister, filed a memorial on
25 February 1977 contending that the application should be
dismissed. The Minister for the Economy and Finance and the Junior
Minister for Posts and Telecommunications did likewise on 4 March
and 18 April.
16. On 17 June 1977 Editions Périscope submitted a memorial
(mémoire ampliatif) which it supplemented on 15 November; it had
requested extensions of the time-limit on 27 April and 1 June in
order to obtain new documents.
17. On 18 November 1977 the Deputy Minister for the Economy and
Finance confirmed his earlier submissions.
18. In a further memorial registered on 16 March 1978, the
applicant company stated inter alia as follows:
"Hitherto, only the Minister for Finance has replied to the
memorial of 15 June 1977 by a memorial of 18 November 1977.
It is clear that the administrative authorities in question
are abusing their privileged position to delay for as long as
possible the conclusion of the trial ... .
This abuse is all the more patent because these authorities
possess resources in material and staff which enable them to
comply with reasonable time-limits for replying."
Consequently, it asked the court "[to] take formal note of its
protests against the dilatory lack of response from the defendant
authorities and [to] order them to reply within a very short period
to the company's memorials of 15 June and 15 November 1977".
19. On 28 March 1978 the Prime Minister declared that he did not
wish to alter his submissions of 25 February 1977 and endorsed the
observations of the Deputy Minister for the Economy and Finance and
those of the Secretary of State for Posts and Telecommunications.
20. Editions Périscope then submitted yet another memorial, the
fourth, lodged on 22 May 1978:
"The failure of the Minister for Finance and the Junior
Minister for Posts and Telecommunications to reply shows that
they have no additional arguments to put forward in respect of
the explanations and documents produced on 15 June and
15 November by the applicant company.
In these circumstances, [the said company] asks the
Administrative Court to regard the written investigation
proceedings as concluded and to fix a date for a hearing to
examine the dispute ..."
It submitted two further memorials on 25 October 1978 and
29 May 1979.
The first contained the following conclusion:
"The silence on the part of the Minister for Posts following
the last three of the company's memorials, the Prime
Minister's letter of 21 March 1978 endorsing the memorials of
the other ministers, the reiteration by the Minister for the
Budget of the arguments put forward by the Minister for
Finance, the total absence of discussion by the defendants of
the damage, the time-limits which have expired, all show that
the State has concluded its defence submissions.
In these circumstances the applicant company requests the
Administrative Court to fix as soon as possible the date for
the examination of the application which was lodged two years
ago."
The second ended as follows:
"Périscope notes that the defendants have all stated that
they wished to reiterate their previous arguments. They have
thus concluded their submissions.
The company ... therefore again requests the Paris
Administrative Court to hold a hearing in the near future to
examine the case, while reserving the right to make oral
submissions through its counsel."
In addition, on 13 January 1979, the lawyer for Editions
Périscope wrote to the President of the Administrative Court to ask
him to set the date for the hearing. It was, he stated,
"unacceptable ... that the authorities [should be able] to delay
indefinitely the conclusion of the proceedings, to the plaintiff's
detriment".
21. The Minister for the Budget filed a supplementary memorial on
10 June 1978, as did the Junior Minister for Posts and
Telecommunications on 23 January 1979. Furthermore, on 22 October,
the latter indicated that he wished to abide by his previous
submissions "in every respect".
3. The judgment of 27 April 1981
22. After a public hearing held on 6 April 1981, the
Administrative Court dismissed the application on 27 April on the
following grounds:
"The application by the company, Editions Périscope,
requests the court to find that the State is liable for the
damage caused to the applicant by the discrimination operated
by the relevant authorities in favour of competing
undertakings in respect both of the postal charges and of the
tax concessions, without also according them to the applicant,
despite its repeated requests, to order the State to pay on
these grounds compensation of 200,000,000 francs and, in the
alternative, to call for an expert opinion to determine the
extent of the damage sustained;
If the applicant company wished to rely on the unlawfulness
of the refusal to register it on the list of publications
qualifying for the above-mentioned advantages [tax
concessions], it should have challenged, in good time, the tax
demands which it considered to have been made in disregard of
the exemption laid down in Article 261-8-1° of the General Tax
Code; it can no longer call in question such demands by means
of an action for damages brought against the Minister for the
Budget since it has not established the unlawfulness of the
refusals;
For their part, the postal authorities did not commit a
fault capable of giving rise to liability on the part of the
State by not according to the applicant special postal rates
inasmuch as it follows from Article D 18 of the Posts and
Telecommunications Code that the application of such rates is
conditional on the production of a registration certificate
issued by the Joint Committee ...; the applicant should, if it
believed that it was entitled to, have challenged within the
prescribed period of two months the lawfulness of the refusal;
the investigation has shown that the attention of the
company's directors was drawn in vain on various occasions to
the difference in the structure of its review in relation to
the competing reviews and to the changes which it would have
to make in order to qualify for the fiscal status accorded to
the press;
The allegation that various competing undertakings had
unduly benefited from the advantages in question, even
supposing that it were established, which the investigation
has not shown, is not such as to constitute an infringement of
the principle of equal treatment by the public authorities;
..."
C. The proceedings in the Conseil d'Etat
1. The appeal
23. By an appeal filed on 15 July 1981, Editions Périscope
requested the Conseil d'Etat to "set aside the contested judgment
[of the Administrative Court], order the State to pay it a sum of
200,000,000 francs in damages and, in the alternative, order an
expert examination for the purposes of determining the extent of
the damage which had been caused to it by the discriminatory
measures of which it had been victim".
2. The investigation
24. The case, whose file the Administrative Court had forwarded to
the Conseil d'Etat on 11 August 1981, was assigned to the tenth
section of the judicial division on 15 August.
25. Editions Périscope filed a memorial on 13 November 1981. On
18 December it drew attention to a typing error in its text.
26. The file was communicated in turn to three members of the
Government: the Minister for the Economy and Finance, from
24 November 1981 to 2 March 1982; the Deputy Minister to the
Minister for Industry and Research, with responsibility for Posts
and Telecommunications, from 16 March 1982 to 16 May 1983, the
Conseil d'Etat having requested its return on 5 May 1983; the
Junior Minister attached to the Prime Minister's office, with
responsibility for Communication Techniques, from 14 June to
3 October 1983.
On 27 January 1982 the first of the above officers requested
an additional time-limit to submit his memorial, which he did on
2 March 1982.
The second filed his memorial on 14 November 1983, after
having indicated on 16 May of the same year that he intended to
"reply very shortly".
The third had lodged his memorial on 3 October 1983.
27. The applicant company filed a further memorial on
28 October 1983 and produced documents on 10 and 24 February 1984.
28. On 10 January 1984 the file was entrusted to a junior member
of the section, who gave his report on 16 April.
The investigation session was held on 21 November and the case
was entered on the list of the tenth and seventh sections combined,
for hearing on 6 March 1985.
3. The judgment of 22 March 1985
29. The Conseil d'Etat dismissed the appeal by a judgment of
22 March 1985 on the following grounds:
"...
By virtue of the provisions of Article 1 of the Decree of
25 March 1950, as amended by the Decree of 2 August 1960, the
Joint Committee ... is responsible for giving an opinion on
the application of statutory instruments and regulations
providing for concessions accorded to the press with regard to
taxes, postal charges and customs duties; pursuant to
Article 3 of the Decree, the [Joint] Committee is to examine
whether the publication appears to satisfy the conditions laid
down in these provisions and, if it does, to issue to the
publication a registration certificate, which must be produced
in support of any application for tax concessions and postal
charge reductions; the refusal to grant a registration
certificate constitutes an opinion to this effect which
precludes the relevant administrative authority from granting
the concessions sought;
By decisions dated 8 December 1960, 9 February 1961 and
17 January 1964, the Joint Committee ... refused to issue the
registration certificate to the review 'Périscope de l'usine
et du bureau', relying on the provisions of Article 72, 6°, of
Annex III to the General Tax Code, which, in the version
applicable at the material time, excluded from the exemption
provided for in the provisions of 1° of [paragraph] 8 of
Article 261 of the same Code newspapers or periodical
publications regarded as equivalent to 'publications whose
principal purpose is to promote or to develop transactions of
commercial, industrial, banking, insurance or other
undertakings for which they are in reality vehicles for
publicity or advertising';
Firstly, it appears from the investigation, and it is
moreover not in dispute, that the monthly review 'Périscope de
l'usine et du bureau' was a publication of the type referred
to in the above-mentioned provision of Article 72 of Annex III
to the General Tax Code, having regard in particular to its
contents and to the proportion of its surface which it devoted
to advertising or articles equivalent to advertisements; the
decision not to issue a registration certificate was
accordingly well-founded;
Secondly, although the advantages refused to the 'Périscope
de l'usine et du bureau' were accorded to publications which
it claims were its competitors, it has not been established in
any way, contrary to what the applicant company alleges, that
these publications could, in terms of their editorial
characteristics and the proportion of advertising carried, be
classified as 'vehicles for publicity or advertising', within
the meaning of the above-mentioned provision of the General
Tax Code, thereby justifying a refusal to accord to them the
benefit of the concessions to the press; it follows that the
applicant company is in any event not entitled to claim that
the [Joint] Committee committed a fault capable of giving rise
to liability on the part of the State by unlawfully granting
other reviews comparable, in the appellant company's opinion,
to that which it publishes, the certificate which was refused
to it;
It follows from the foregoing that there is no basis for the
limited company Editions Périscope's complaint against the
contested judgment by which the Paris Administrative Court
dismissed its claim for compensation."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
30. In its application of 20 September 1985 to the Commission
(no. 11760/85), Editions Périscope alleged several violations of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention: the administrative
courts had not heard its case within a reasonable time; the Conseil
d'Etat had not constituted an impartial tribunal, because two of
its members had been involved in the case previously and its
judgment did not mention the names of the judges who had
participated in the ruling or reproduce, in the text notified, the
summary of the arguments of the parties, which had appeared in the
handwritten version.
31. On 12 April 1989 the Commission declared the application
admissible as regards the length of the proceedings, but
inadmissible for the other complaints. In its report of
11 October 1990 (Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion
that there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
(seventeen votes to two). The full text of the Commission's
opinion and of the dissenting opinion contained in the report is
reproduced as an annex to this judgment*.
_______________
* Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will
appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 234-B
of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the
Commission's report is available from the registry.
_______________
FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT
32. In their memorial the Government requested the Court to
"dismiss the present application as ill-founded".
Counsel for the applicant company asked the Court to
"declare well-founded its application based on the violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention by the
French State,
so ruling, ... declare that the French State has violated
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and ... order
it to pay to the applicant company compensation to make good
the damage sustained on the basis of the claims submitted in
this respect by the company in question".
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)
33. Editions Périscope complained of the time taken to examine the
action which it had brought against the State in the Paris
Administrative Court, and then in the Conseil d'Etat. It alleged
a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention,
according to which:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable
time by [a] ... tribunal ..."
A. Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
34. The applicant company and the Commission considered that this
provision was applicable in the instant case. The Government took
the contrary view.
1. Existence of a dispute over a right
35. Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) extends to "contestations"
(disputes) over (civil) "rights" which can be said, at least on
arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, irrespective
of whether they are also protected under the Convention (see, inter
alia, the Neves e Silva v. Portugal judgment of 27 April 1989,
Series A no. 153-A, p. 14, para. 37).
36. It is common ground that a dispute existed; the participants
in the proceedings disagree, however, as to its subject-matter.
According to the Government, the dispute concerned exclusively the
application of the rules relating to the granting of tax
concessions and postal charge reductions, in other words the right
to be accorded the advantages reserved for certain publications.
The applicant company argued, on the contrary, that its application
was for a full review (contentieux de pleine juridiction) and
raised the question of the liability of the public authorities.
37. The Court agrees with the Commission that the trial concerned
compensation for the damage which the State had allegedly caused
Editions Périscope by refusing to accord to it the reductions
granted by it to competing undertakings. In its application of
12 November 1976 to the Paris Administrative Court, the applicant
company complained of the "faults committed by the public
authorities" (see paragraph 14 above) which had, it claimed, led it
to cease publishing "Périscope de l'usine et du bureau" and to
discontinue its activities. At the centre of the dispute therefore
lay a right, the right to compensation for a fault on the part of
the authorities capable of giving rise to the State's liability.
38. It is unnecessary to consider whether, as the Government
maintained, Editions Périscope ought, as early as 1964, to have
appealed against the Joint Committee's decision, rather than having
recourse belatedly to an application for compensation. For the
purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), it is enough to determine
whether the applicant company's arguments were sufficiently
tenable; the Court does not have to decide whether they were well-
founded in terms of the French legislation or whether another legal
basis would have afforded better prospects of success. In fact the
two courts before which the case came found the application
admissible inasmuch as, in assessing whether there had been a fault
attributable to the public authorities, they ruled on the merits of
the case (see, mutatis mutandis, the Neves e Silva judgment, cited
above, Series A no. 153-A, p. 14, para. 37).
2. Was the disputed right a civil right?
39. The Government also contended that no "civil right" was in
issue. If the contrary view were to be accepted in this instance,
that would, in their opinion, mean that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-
1) would be applicable in any proceedings aimed at securing
compensation for damage, irrespective of the nature of the right
invoked. The present case fell within a class of activities in
which the State intervened as the holder of the public authority;
there was no analogy with the Baraona v. Portugal and Neves e Silva
cases (judgments of 8 July 1987 and 27 April 1989). The
Commission's case-law clearly excluded taxation and the related
area of tax concessions from the field of private law; the granting
of preferential postal rates concerned the relationship between
consumers and a public administrative service - and not an
industrial and commercial one -, which was a public law matter.
Finally, the State's liability in relation to private individuals
for the application of rules in the spheres of taxes and postal
charges fell outside the scope of civil law principles in France
and could not be classified as "civil". There was a two-way link
between jurisdiction and the merits; the fact that the rules in
force derogated from the ordinary law determined the administrative
courts' jurisdiction to examine the disputes thereby generated.
The Commission and its Delegate essentially relied on the
above-mentioned Neves e Silva judgment. They discerned in that
decision clear criteria on the basis of which it was possible to
conclude that the right in question was a civil right. The
applicant company's lawyer agreed.
40. The Court notes that the subject-matter of the applicant
company's action was "pecuniary" in nature and that the action was
founded on an alleged infringement of rights which were likewise
pecuniary rights. The right in question was therefore a "civil
right", notwithstanding the origin of the dispute and the fact that
the administrative courts had jurisdiction (see, inter alia, the
Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13,
p. 39, para. 94, and the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978,
Series A no. 27, p. 30, para. 90).
3. Conclusion
41. Accordingly Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) applies in this case.
B. Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
42. It remains to determine whether or not a "reasonable time" was
exceeded.
The applicant company and the Commission considered that it
had been; the Government disputed this assertion.
43. The period to be taken into consideration began on
12 November 1976, when the proceedings were instituted in the Paris
Administrative Court. It ended on 22 March 1985 when the Conseil
d'Etat delivered its judgment.
44. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be
determined with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's
case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which
in this instance call for an overall assessment.
Examination of the two decisions of the administrative courts
shows that the case was not a particularly complex one. In
addition, the applicant company did nothing to delay the conclusion
of the proceedings; on the contrary, it made repeated attempts to
compel the ministries concerned to submit their memorials more
rapidly (see paragraphs 18 and 20 above). It follows that the
Court cannot regard as reasonable in this instance a lapse of time
of more than eight years.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1).
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)
45. Under Article 50 (art. 50):
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a
legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting
Party is completely or partially in conflict with the
obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the
internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation
to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure,
the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just
satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Pecuniary damage
46. Editions Périscope claimed in the first place 2,000,000 francs
for the pecuniary damage which it had allegedly sustained. It was
not however in a position to give details of such damage and to
produce evidence to prove its existence. In particular it conceded
that it was unable to distinguish between the damage ensuing from
the decisions of the administrative courts and that deriving from
the length of the proceedings.
In the Government's contention, there was no damage to be made
good because the French administrative courts had definitively
rejected the applicant company's claim for tax concessions and
reduced postal charges. The Delegate of the Commission subscribed
to this view.
47. For its part too, the Court can discern no causal connection
between the violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) and the
dismissal of the company's action by the national courts. The
claim must therefore fail.
B. Costs and expenses
48. Editions Périscope also sought 100,000 francs for costs and
expenses.
The Government considered the claim excessive and pointed out
that no supporting documents had been submitted. The Delegate of
the Commission did not express a view on this matter.
49. The applicant company did not distinguish between the costs
and expenses which it had incurred in the French courts and those
referable to the proceedings before the Convention organs, nor,
with regard to the former, according to whether they had been
incurred in attempting to speed up the progress of the proceedings
or for other purposes. Making an assessment on an equitable basis
in accordance with Article 50 (art. 50) and having regard to the
criteria which it applies in this field, the Court awards the
applicant company
50,000 francs under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) applies in this
instance and has been violated;
2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant
company, within three months, 50,000 (fifty thousand) French
francs for costs and expenses;
3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public
hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 March 1992.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Marc-André EISSEN
Registrar