CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 juin 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 132 July 2010 Caron and Others v. France (dec.) - 48629/08 Decision 29.6.2010 [Section V] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Criminal conviction for destroying fields of genetically modified crops: inadmissible   Article 8 Criminal conviction for destroying fields of genetically modified crops: inadmissible   Facts – The applicants removed the male and female flowers from genetically modified corn crops in a field in order to prevent them from spreading. This was part of a campaign by a movement opposed to the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in open fields on grounds of the damage to the environment and public health allegedly caused by crop trials of this nature.The applicants were given a suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment, at final instance, and fined EUR   1,000 each for destroying, damaging or harming another’s property, while acting as a group. Law – Articles 2 and 8 (a)     Interference with the applicants’ health and environment – The applicants clearly stated that the primary purpose of their campaign had been the protection of the collective interest. They confined themselves to complaining in the abstract about the effect of GMOs on the environment and public health and declaring that they were exposed to a health risk on the grounds that non-GM crops were being contaminated by GMOs. They failed to explain, however, how they had been personally affected, in terms of their health and private life, by the GMOs being grown on the plots that they had neutralised. Moreover, the GM crops neutralised by the applicants were not in the vicinity of their homes, farms or vineyards. Lastly, they had not alleged that their choice of crop plantations had been based on the need to put an end to the direct or indirect effects that these might have on their health or their private and family life. In the circumstances, this part of the complaint was an actio popularis and the applicants could not be regarded as victims, within the meaning of Article   34, of the violations alleged. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione personae ). (b)     The applicants’ criminal conviction – Neither Article   2 nor Article   8 could have the effect of relieving the applicants of their criminal responsibility for criminal offences. Indeed, that responsibility had been recognised by the domestic courts and in particular by the court of appeal, which had held, giving detailed reasons devoid of any arbitrariness, that the action was not justified by the precautionary principle and that the applicants could not rely on a defence of necessity either. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). Article 1 of Protocol No.   1: Having regard to the conclusion regarding the first limb of the complaint under Articles   2 and   8, the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation on the basis of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 either. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione personae ).   © 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