CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 mars 2026

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary April 2026 Flouhi and Others v. France (dec.) - 1513/22, 32287/22, 32523/22 et al. Decision 24.3.2026 [Section V] Article 6 Article 6-1 Access to court Rejection, pursuant to four-year limitation period, of applicants’ claims for compensation for damage resulting from degrading living conditions in reception camps in France for Harkis and members of other auxiliary units of French Army: inadmissible Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Applicants, whose claims for compensation had been rejected pursuant to four-year limitation period, had access to new lump-sum remedy, with no time-limit for lodging claims, allowing compensation for damage resulting from degrading living conditions in reception camps in France for Harkis and members of other auxiliary units of French Army: inadmissible Facts – The applicants were Harkis (members of auxiliary units who fought alongside the French Army during the Algerian War of Independence) and children of Harkis. The applicants sought compensation before the French administrative courts for the damage resulting from the alleged negligence by the French State in failing to protect the Harkis, the members of other auxiliary units and their respective families from the massacres and reprisals perpetrated against them in Algeria at the time of it gaining independence, and to organise their systematic repatriation to France. At last instance, the Conseil d’État found that the acts and omissions relied on by the applicants constituted acts of State which involved the relations between France and Algeria, and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule on any potential acts of negligence on the part of the State. Relying on Article 6 §   1 and Article   13 of the Convention, the applicants complained of a breach of their right of access to a court. Furthermore, the Conseil d’État rejected as time-barred the applicants’ claims for compensation in respect of the living conditions in the reception camps in France for Harkis and members of other auxiliary units of the French Army. Under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants submitted that the excessive formalism with which the administrative courts had applied the four-year limitation period had breached their right of access to a court. Lastly, the applicants complained under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 about the living conditions in the reception camps for Harkis in France. Law – Article   6 §   1 (application of four-year limitation period): The administrative courts considered that the applicants’ claims were time-barred on the grounds that the full extent of the facts imputable to the authorities had been known at the latest on the date of the closure of the reception camps and the applicants had had sufficient information at their disposal to bring a claim for compensation against the State as from that date and at the latest within four years from when they had attained majority (four-year limitation period). The applicants’ claims for compensation before the domestic courts had been lodged at a time when general rules governing liability were applicable. The new lump-sum compensation remedy created by the Law of 23 February 2022, which completely replaced such compensation claims under the general rules – henceforth inadmissible –, made it possible to seek compensation for the damage resulting from the degrading living conditions in reception camps for Harkis and members of other auxiliary units, and the limitation period for lodging claims may not be used against claimants. This new remedy was, moreover, more favourable to applicants than the relevant general rules governing liability since it was based on a double presumption: first, that damage had indeed been sustained as a result of the degrading living conditions in the camps in question; and, secondly, that that damage was imputable to the State, where the persons concerned could prove that they had been living in the camps during the dates set out in the implementing regulations. The major obstacle that had previously hampered the relevant compensation claims – namely the length of time that had elapsed since the facts in issue, which had given rise to difficulties in proving cases before the lower courts and the time-barring of claims – had therefore been circumvented by the new compensation scheme introduced by the Law of 23 February 2022. The fact that the applicants’ compensation claims under the general rules had been rejected by the domestic courts pursuant to the rule of statutory limitation – applied by the State with a view to the effective implementation of the new scheme – or on account of a lack of evidence that the alleged damage had actually been sustained, did not prevent the applicants lodging fresh claims for compensation before the Independent National Commission for the Recognition and Reparation of Damage Sustained by Harkis and other individuals repatriated from Algeria (Commission nationale indépendante de reconnaissance et de réparation des préjudices subis par les harkis (CNIH)) on the specific basis of the Law of 23 February 2022. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Court concluded that the application of the four-year limitation period and the procedure for determining the starting-point for that period in respect of the applicants had not been disproportionate, having regard to the State’s margin of appreciation in this area. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded) . The Court also declared inadmissible, as manifestly ill-founded, the complaint under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention based on the Conseil d’État ’s application of the acts of State doctrine, which had led it to find that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the applicants’ claims seeking compensation for the damage resulting from France’s failure to protect the Harkis and members of other auxiliary units and their families who had remained in Algeria at the time of it gaining independence, and to systematically repatriate them to France. The Court considered that, in the circumstances of the present case, there was no reason to depart from its findings in the Tamazount and Others v. France judgment. Articles   3, 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1: With regard to the applicants in applications nos. 32523/22, 44726/22, 12594/23, 26466/23 and 29688/24, whose alleged dates of having lived in the camps extended beyond 3 May 1974 – the date of the entry into force of the Convention and Protocol No. 1 in respect of France – or were insufficiently precise to preclude the possibility of them having lived there after that date, their applications had all been lodged after the entry into force in domestic law of the Law of 23 February 2022 establishing the new compensation scheme and its implementing decrees of 18 March 2022, enabling its effective application. Neither that Law nor its implementing decrees lay down any time-limit for lodging compensation claims under the new scheme, and the Conseil d’État had clarified in its opinion of 6   October 2023 that individuals who had lodged their compensation claims before the new scheme had come into force could still lodge such a claim with the CNIH on the basis of the provisions of that Law. In addition, the administrative courts of appeal dealing with the applicants’ appeals had deemed it appropriate to state explicitly that, while their ordinary-law actions were being rejected pursuant to the four-year limitation period, this was “without prejudice to the application of Law no. 2022-229 of 23 February 2022”. The Court therefore concluded that the compensation scheme specifically created in domestic law to provide redress for the alleged violations was accessible to the applicants. Lastly, in the event of a dispute over the amount of compensation awarded under the new lump-sum scheme, claimants had the possibility of applying for judicial review in the administrative courts. In that connection, if the applicants were to use the new compensation scheme, this would in no way prejudice, where appropriate, possible review of the effectiveness of the remedy in question, and particularly the domestic courts’ ability to establish uniform, Convention-compliant case-law, and the effective enforcement of the CNIH’s decisions. There was nothing before the Court to suggest that the new compensation scheme did not, in principle, offer any prospect of appropriate redress for the Convention complaints. In those circumstances – and in the particular circumstances of the present case and with due regard to the principle of subsidiarity – the Court considered that the applicants, who had at their disposal in domestic law a scheme allowing, in principle, appropriate redress for the complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, had to make use of it. Conclusion : inadmissible (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies). The Court also declared the complaints in applications nos. 1513/22 and 32287/22 inadmissible as incompatible ratione temporis , given that the applicants had left the reception camps in 1969 and had therefore no longer been living there on 3 May 1974. (See Tamazount and Others v.   France , 17131/19 et al., 4   April 2024, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .