CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 juillet 2000

.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 } .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 20 July 2000 Gaillard v. France (dec.) - 47337/99 Decision 11.7.2000 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Considerable delay in communicating information necessary to investigate a complaint: inadmissible The applicant was convicted by the criminal court of having carried out development without planning permission. He appealed against that judgment, without success. By judgment of 22 August 1994 the Court of Cassation rejected his appeal on points of law. He then requested the Court of Cassation to alter its judgment; this request, too, was rejected. On 22 January 1997 the Court of Cassation also dismissed the appeal lodged by the Attorney General attached to the Court of Cassation on the ground that its decision contravened a statute. The applicant lodged a second application for the Court of Cassation to alter, on this occasion, the judgment of 22 January 1997; this application was dismissed on 2 July 1998. He then lodged a number of applications with the Criminal Convictions Review Board seeking a review of the judgment of the Court of Appeal; these applications were unsuccessful. Finally, he lodged an interlocutory application before the Court of Appeal for enforcement of the judgment of the criminal court. The Court of Appeal dismissed his application and he lodged a cassation appeal, which was dismissed on 2 July 1998. On 25 April 1997 the applicant had contacted the secretariat of the Commission. On 6 January 1998 the secretariat received an application. On 3 February 1998 it sent the applicant a form for completion, which the applicant did not return until 28 December 1998. Inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 (six-month period): In accordance with the practice followed by the Commission, the date of introduction of the application is the date of the first letter setting out, including in a summary manner, the complaints raised. However, where a significant period lapses before the applicant provides the further details required to investigate the complaint, it is necessary to examine the particular circumstances of the case in order to determine the date which is to be regarded as the date on which the application was introduced. Since the applicant did not return the application form until 28 December 1998 – ie ten months after receiving it and one year after his last letter – the latter date must be taken as the date of introduction of the application. The applicant complains of violations of the Convention in the judgments of the Court of Cassation of 22 August 1994 and 22 January 1997: inadmissible (out of time).   © 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