CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 décembre 2011

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 148 January 2012 Mandil v. France (dec.) - 67037/09 Decision 13.12.2011 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-3 Abuse of the right of petition Failure to respect duty of confidentiality in friendly-settlement negotiations: inadmissible Facts – In 2006 the applicant was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, suspended, and a fine of EUR 1,000 for deliberately damaging or destroying plots of genetically modified maize. In 2008 the criminal court found him guilty of refusing to undergo biological testing for the purposes of identifying his DNA, and ordered him to pay a fine of EUR   7 per day for sixty days. The applicant lodged a complaint with the European Court, alleging that his conviction for that offence was in violation of his right to respect for his private life. In 2011 his application was communicated to the French Government. On 14   October 2011 the regional daily newspaper L’Est Républicain published an article on its website entitled “Negotiation – €1,500 offered to a Pontarlier municipal councillor to withdraw his complaint against the French government – A cut for the GM reaper”. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the applicant displaying a letter from his lawyer, with the caption “A Pontarlier municipal councillor has been offered payment to drop proceedings”. A press agency journalist subsequently contacted the European Court to ask whether a friendly settlement of that kind was in keeping with the spirit of the Convention. Law – Article 35 § 3 (a): The information on procedure sent to the applicant following the communication of his complaint had specified that in accordance with Rule 62 §   2 of the Rules of Court negotiations conducted with a view to reaching a friendly settlement were strictly confidential. In this case, the information available to the Court had made it possible to establish that the applicants and their lawyers had knowingly disclosed to the press details of negotiations on a potential friendly settlement of the case. Such conduct had demonstrated malicious intent and at the very least unfair exploitation because that information had been accompanied by comments capable of discrediting the Government’s actions, which had been taken in accordance with the rules governing proceedings before the Court. As a result, the applicant had violated the principle of confidentiality enshrined in Article 39 §   2 of the Convention and Rule   62 of the Rules of Court and, in the circumstances, his conduct had constituted abuse of the right of individual petition for the purposes of Article 35 §   3   (a) of the Convention. Conclusion : inadmissible (abuse of the right of petition). (See also the Barreau and Others v.   France (no.   24697/09) and Deceuninck v.   France (no.   47447/08) decisions of 13   December 2011)   © 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