Robert Goddard - art. 10 CEDO aplicat societatilor comerciale

In Meltex Ltd v Armenia [2008] ECHR 531, a company complained that its freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention had been violated by the refusal of the Armenian authorities to grant it broadcasting licences.

Sursa.

CEDO in materia taxelor

Philip Baker, Some Recent Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, European Taxation. Amsterdam: Jun 2008. Vol. 48, Iss. 6; pg. 315

This article examines some recent cases of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on tax matters. The cases examined relate to searches of premises by revenue officers, taxes that impose an excessive burden and legal aid in tax appeal cases. One of the more difficult issues in the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to tax matters is the question of searches of premises by revenue authorities. Under Art. L.16B of the Law on Fiscal Procedure (Livre des Procedures Fiscales, LPF), the President of the local Tribunal de Grande Instance can authorize a search of premises by revenue officials and the seizure of evidence found. In theory, a tax that imposes an excessive burden and undermines the economic position of the taxpayer infringes the right of protection of property in Art. 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR.

ProQuest. [*]

Date cu caracter personal, stanga-dreapta si societati la CEDO

Inca o data: se va intampla dupa aderarea UE la CEDO? Sa vezi directivele in actiune…

I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. & Karis c. Grèce (requête n ^o 15909/06) du 5 juin 2008 [*]

La Cour a rendu un arrêt de violation contre la Grèce à propos de la condamnation d’un journal de gauche, I’Avgi, pour diffamation. L’article contesté évoquait une manifestation organisée par des opposants à une décision de l’Autorité pour la protection des données à caractère personnel : pour l’autorité, la mention de certains éléments, notamment celui de la religion, sur la carte d’identité constituait un traitement de données contraire à la loi relative à la protection des données à caractère personnel. L’Eglise orthodoxe était très opposée à cette décision. L’article visait K.V., journaliste et écrivain qui anime une émission politique diffusée par une station de télévision dans le nord de la Grèce, et l’un des organisateurs du rassemblement ; l’article, le situant à l’extrême-droite, le qualifie de « nationaliste effréné connu », expression pour laquelle les requérants seront condamnés, la cour de cassation grecque ayant indiqué que les seuls termes d’extrême-droite et de nationaliste auraient suffi et n’auraient pas constitué une diffamation.

La Cour Edh condamne la Grèce pour violation de l’article 10 CEDH : “le rôle des juridictions internes dans une procédure de diffamation ne consiste pas à indiquer au journaliste le strict minimum des termes et qualifications à employer lorsque celui-ci exerce, dans le cadre de sa profession, son droit de critique, même de manière acerbe. Les tribunaux internes sont plutôt appelés à examiner si le contexte de l’affaire, l’intérêt du public et l’intention du journaliste, justifiaient l’éventuel recours à une dose de provocation ou d’exagération.” Par ailleurs la Cour constate que la condamnation des requérants à payer la somme de 58.000 euros au titre du dommage moral subi, est “disproportionnée avec le but poursuivi par la mesure restrictive en cause.”

 

CRJ-Despre proprietatea nesolutionata. In vesnicie

sau poate doar o noua amanare

Centrul de Resurse Juridice, comunicat.

Procurorul General al României a sesizat la data de 4 octombrie 2007 Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie cu recurs în interesul legii în materie de proprietate, motivându-se practica neunitară a instanţelor judecătoreşti. Secţiile Unite ar trebui să se pronunţe luni, 2 iunie 2008, asupra  admisibilităţii/indamisibilităţii acţiunii în revendicare întemeiată pe dreptul comun după intrarea în vigoare a Legii 10 /2001.
Din păcate Statul român nu este în posesia unei statistici privind numărul de condamnări pe care România le are la Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului, cauzate de nerespectarea dreptului de proprietate privată şi nici a sumelor de bani plătite de contribuabilul român în toate aceste cauze.
Atragem atenţia asupra faptului că, în cele mai multe situaţii, este pe cale de a se împlini termenul de 10 ani, termen în interiorul căruia cumpărătorii fostelor imobile naţionalizate nu aveau dreptul să le înstrăineze. Ori declararea ca inadmisibilă a acţiunii în revendicare duce, pe de o parte, la blocarea acţiunilor foştilor proprietari şi, pe de altă parte, la posibilitatea vânzării la preţul pieţei a unor imobile cumpărate la preţuri derizorii. Şi, cel mai probabil, la noi condamnări la CEDO.

Faţă de opinia îmbrăţişată de către Procurorul General, şi anume că acţiunea în revendicare întemeiată pe dreptul civil (art. 480, 481 Cod civil) nu este admisibilă după intrarea în vigoare a Legii 10/2001, Centrul de Resurse Juridice exprimă următoarele puncte de vedere:
- premisele de la care pleacă cele două texte (Codul civil, respectiv Legea 10/ 2001) sunt diferite: un drept de proprietate care nu a ieşit niciodată din patrimoniul proprietarului, respectiv reconstituirea unui drept de proprietate cu efecte pentru viitor;
- nefiind premise similare, regula “specialul derogă de la general” nu poate fi aplicată;
- pe de altă parte, orice derogare de la dreptul comun (regula generală) trebuie să fie clară, explicită şi de strictă interpretare; în acest sens, Legea 10/2001 nu conţine astfel de articole derogatorii de la dreptul comun;
- nu în ultimul rând România este parte a Convenţiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului şi, ca atare, aplicarea tratatului, respectiv a art. 1 din Protocolul Adiţional în materie de proprietate este obligatorie.
Solicităm, aşadar, Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie, ca o premisă a transparenţei şi responsabilităţii, să aducă la cunoştinţa opiniei publice felul în care a votat fiecare membru al acestei instanţe.

Textul Procurorului General referitor la Recursul in Interesul Legii.

S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa c. Roumanie

S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa c. Roumanie (n° 1477/02)La requérante, S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa, est une société commerciale constituée en 1991, à la suite de la transformation d’une ancienne entreprise d’Etat en société par actions. Son siège social est à Constanţa (Roumanie) et son objet principal d’activité est le pilotage des navires dans les ports maritimes, le Danube maritime et fluvial et les canaux navigables. L’affaire concerne la non-exécution ou l’annulation d’arrêts définitifs rendus en faveur de la société requérante concernant son droit d’exercer l’activité de pilotage. Elle invoque les articles 6 § 1 (droit à un procès équitable) et 1 du Protocole n° 1 (protection de la propriété).

CEDO- victima propriului succes

Laurence R. Helfer, Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, p. 125, 2008 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1021798

 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the crown jewel of the world’s most advanced international system for protecting civil and political liberties. In recent years, however, the ECtHR has become a victim of its own success. The Court now faces a docket crisis of massive proportions, the consequence of the growing number of states subject to its jurisdiction, its favourable public reputation, its expansive interpretations of individual liberties, a distrust of domestic judiciaries in some countries, and entrenched human rights problems in others. In response to this growing backlog of individual complaints, the Council of Europe has, over the last five years, considered numerous proposals to restructure the European human rights regime and redesign the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article argues that these proposals should be understood not as ministerial changes in supranational judicial procedure, nor as resolving a debate over whether the ECtHR should strive for individual or constitutional justice, but rather as raising more fundamental questions concerning the Court’s future identity. In particular, the article argues for recognition of ‘embeddedness‘ in national legal systems as a deep structural principle of the ECHR, a principle that functions as a necessary counterpoint to the subsidiary doctrine that has animated the Convention since its founding. Embeddedness does not substitute ECtHR rulings for the decisions of national parliaments or domestic courts. Rather, it requires the Council of Europe and the Court to bolster the mechanisms for governments to remedy human rights violations at home, obviating the need for individuals to seek supranational relief and restoring countries to a position in which the ECtHR’s deference to national decision-makers is appropriate.

Consiliul Europei. Primul raport anual 2007 privind executarea hotarilor CEDO

	Council of Europe - Committee of Ministers: Supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights - 1st annual report 2007 (*)

Viziuni asupra libertatii de exprimare. De la TPI, via CJCE, la CEDO.

Prin Tratatul de la Lisabona s-a infaptuit un vis al celor care vor un balamuc definitiv in aceasta peninsula, coditza continentului asiatic, careia i se mai spune Europa.

Uniunea Europeana va adera la CEDO.

Pana atunci va dau o veste mai putin vesela. Tocmai s-a judecat,  decizia este din 27 noiembrie 2008, cazul d-lui Martin Tillack. S-a judecat la CEDO, ca se judecase si la TPI si CJCE.

La instantele european-comunitare (TPI: Ordonanta din 15.10.2004, T-193/04 R; CJCE: C-521/04, Ordonanta din 19.04.2005), domnul Tillack a pierdut, iar la instantele european-conventionale, mai precis la CEDO - a castigat (cererea nr. 20477/05): Martin Tillack c. Belgia - definitiva in 28.02.2008.

Uniunea cauta sa combata orice discriminare pe motive de (…) religie (Tratatul de la Lisabona, 2007)

Ronan McCrea, Limitations on Religion in a Liberal Democratic Polity: Christianity and Islam in the Public Order of the European Union (December 2007). LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 18/2007 Available at SSRN.

This paper examines aspects of the European Union’s approach to the accession of new member states and the integration of immigrants to show how the Union has viewed religion as a potential threat to the autonomy of the public sphere and to individual autonomy in the private sphere and has required acceptance of limitations on religious influence over law and law-making from both applicant states and individual migrants. It notes how, in common with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the EU has been willing to interfere with privacy and individual autonomy in order to protect such principles from the consequences of unlimited religious influence on law and society. Finally the paper considers how the Union’s attempts to uphold limitations on religion in the public sphere have been complicated by the partial and contested nature of the secularity of its existing members. It shows how an Islamic presence in the public sphere has been identified by the Union as particularly threatening to the liberal democracy in contrast to its ready acceptance of the public roles of culturally and historically entrenched Christian denominations in many member states.

CEDO - Franta a incalcat art. 14 & 8 CEDO pentru ca a refuzat adoptia unui copil de catre o mamica lesbiana

Votul strans: 10-7…  

European court condemns France for refusing to allow lesbian to adopt a child

The Associated Press

STRASBOURG, France

A French lesbian woman was discriminated against when authorities refused to allow her to adopt a child, Europe’s human right court ruled Tuesday.

The European Court of Human Rights said the refusal by regional authorities, upheld by two French courts, to authorize the adoption request breached the woman’s rights because it appeared motivated by her sexual orientation. It granted her euro24,500 (US$35,500) in damages and court expenses.

The 45-year-old woman, identified only as E.B., a nursery teacher, first filed a request to adopt a child with authorities in the Jura region in eastern France in 1998, mentioning her stable relationship with another woman.

The request was rejected, but France maintained that the applicant’s sexual orientation played no part in the decision. The French civil code allows singles over the age of 28 to adopt, but says two unmarried people cannot both adopt the same child. It does not mention homosexuality.

France said that it had refused the request due to “the absence of a paternal image” in the woman’s household and what it called the “ambiguous” nature of her partner’s commitment to the adoption. It also said it had to take into account the needs and interests of the adopted child.

But the court’s Grand Chamber of 17 European judges ruled 10-7 that the authorities unduly dwelled on the paternal element since the adoption request was filed by a single woman. It also disputed France’s claim that that the woman’s sexual orientation did not influence the decision.

“The court considered that the reference to the applicant’s homosexuality had been, if not explicit, at least implicit; the influence of her homosexuality on the assessment of her application had not only been established but had also been a decisive factor” leading to the refusal, the court said.

The applicant’s attorney said the ruling effectively prohibits France from refusing adoption requests on sexual orientation grounds.

“France will have to review its position as regards adoptions by homosexuals,” lawyer Caroline Mecary said, adding that nine European countries explicitly allow homosexual adoptions.

The French Association of Gay and Lesbian parents called the judgment a “moral victory” for homosexuals seeking to adopt.

The Council of Europe, which administers the human rights court, will draft a recommendation to France within several months on how to remedy the situation.

Stirea aici (*); o cronica interesanta aici (*). Hotararea aici (*). De notat ca au fost formulate cinci (!) opinii contrare. Si iarasi… apare problema politizarii modului de interpretare a instrumentelor de drepturi ale omului… Instructiv de citit o cronica anterioara in materie aici (*).

Si citez aici din opinia contrara a judecatorului Zupancic:

“(…) is it possible to imagine the Nobel Prize Committee being accused of discrimination because it never awards any Nobel Prizes to scientists of a particular race or nationality? Such an assertion would, of course, require statistical proof. Statistical evidence is, indeed, very prevalent in employment discrimination and similar cases. In other words, if in this particular situation the European Court of Human Rights were to establish that the French administrative authorities systematically discriminate against lesbian women wishing to adopt a child, the issue would be much clearer“.

CEDO - dreptul de a procrea pentru un vietas

Stirea suna asa:
Jailed killer has right to father a child, European Court rules (*)

Britain breached the human rights of a murderer and his wife by refusing them access to IVF treatment, the European Court ruled yesterday.

Kirk Dickson, 35, and his wife Lorraine now have the right to start a family even though he is serving a life sentence.

The couple, who met via a pen pal network while Mrs Dickson was also in prison, were determined to have a baby but Dickson’s earliest release date from a minimum 15-year sentence is 2009, when Mrs Dickson, of Beverley, East Yorkshire, will be 51.

The Dicksons, who married in 2001, argued that artificial insemination was their only chance to have a child of their own and that a Home Office decision to deny them access to treatment breached their human rights.

They had launched a legal battle in October 2001, but David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, rejected their claim. The Dicksons took their fight to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where, in April 2006, they lost again.

However, the court’s Grand Chamber overturned that ruling yesterday, voting 12 to 5 in favour of allowing the couple access to the treatment and awarding them €5,000 (£3,500) in damages and €21,000 in costs.

The couple’s lawyer, Elkan Abrahamson, said last night that they were both elated at the decision. However, it would make little difference because Dickson was now in an open prison and allowed home leave.

Decizia CEDO aici (*).

CEDO - D.H. si altii c. Republicii Cehe - sau despre segregarea rromanesilor

Stirea suna asa:

EUOBSERVER / STRASBOURG - The Strasbourg-based European human rights court has ruled against the Czech Republic in a case involving Roma students who had been placed in special schools, with possible implications for other central European countries accused of similar segregation practices.In a verdict delivered on Tuesday (13 November), the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights confirmed Prague had violated the non-discrimination principles by sending 18 persons to special schools for pupils with learning difficulties due to their Roma origin.In the explanation of its decision - adopted by judges by 13 to 4 votes - the court said that “the Czech authorities had accepted that in 1999 Roma pupils made up between 80 percent and 90 percent of the total number of pupils in some special schools and that in 2004 ‘large numbers’ of Roma children were still being placed in special schools.”It added that the statistical evidence “could be regarded as sufficiently reliable and significant to give rise to a strong presumption of indirect discrimination,” as well as “concerns” over the segregation that the Czech system caused.

“In view of the fundamental importance of the prohibition of racial discrimination, the Grand Chamber considered that no waiver of the right not to be subjected to racial discrimination could be accepted, as it would be counter to an important public interest.”

The judges asked the Czech Republic to pay each Roma applicant €4,000 for moral damage plus €10,000 jointly for eight-year-long court proceedings costs, while openly pointing out that Prague is not alone in showing “difficulties” with the problem among European countries.

NGOs welcomed the court’s decision, pointing out that the practice of racial segregation in education is widespread in Central and Eastern Europe.

“The court has made clear that racial discrimination has no place in 21st century Europe,” said James A. Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative”.

Hotararea CEDO se gaseste aici.

De notat si faptul ca 4 judecatori au formulat opinii contrare.

Acum, ca o observatie proprie, suspectez ca tocmai “multiculturalismul” (si, evident, imperfectiunea notiunilor si explicatiilor utilizate de diversii activisti, dar si globalismul viziunii nediscrimatorii, necircumstantiata realitatilor din diversele state) este vinovat de segregare. Ramane sa vedem ce va fi in viitor. Cititi, de exemplu, opinia contrara a judecatorului Jungwiert (p. 75-80).  Exemplu f. instructiv.

Alte observatiuni cu alta ocazie.

Actualizare 16.11. Stiri aici (*) si linkurile aferente, cu “landmark victory” (sic!), victorie impotriva cui?! Ar fi de reflectat asupra modului dogmatic de aplicare a principiului nediscriminarii… Dar, finalmente, asta e…

The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law

Nico Krisch, The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Working papers in Human Rights (*).

Abstract:

The evolution of the European human rights regime is often described in constitutionalist terms: as the move towards an integrated order with the European Convention of Human Rights as its “constitutional instrument” at the top. In this article, I seek to show that this description is misguided and that the regime is better regarded as pluralist - as characterised by a heterarchical relationship between its constituent parts that is ultimately defined politically and not legally. The emergence and workings of this pluralist order are traced through the interaction of the European Court of Human Rights with domestic courts in Spain, France, the European Union and the United Kingdom. All these cases not only show conflicts over questions of ultimate supremacy but also significant convergence and harmony in day-to-day practice. I begin to identify factors that have led to this convergence and conclude that central characteristics of pluralism - incrementalism and the openness of ultimate authority - seem to have contributed to the generally smooth evolution of the European human rights regime in a significant way. This finding suggests a broader appeal of pluralist models as alternatives to constitutionalism in the construction of postnational authority and law.

Minoritatea: etnica sau religioasa?

 Bekir-Ousta et autres : Les requérants, appartenant à la minorité musulmane de la Thrace occidentale grecque, ont décidé de créer une « Association de la jeunesse de la minorité du département d’Evros ». Leur demande a été rejetée comme étant nécessaire à l’ordre public, au motif que le statut de l’association visait en réalité une minorité ethnique (turque) et non religieuse, ce qui serait contraire à la constitution grecque. Si la Cour EDH rejette la demande fondée sur la durée du procès (article 6 § 1, droit au procès équitable), par contre elle constate la violation par la Grèce de l’article 11 CEDH : “à supposer même que le véritable but de l’association fût de promouvoir l’idée qu’il existe en Grèce une minorité ethnique, ceci ne saurait passer pour constituer à lui seul une menace pour une société démocratique“.

 Decizia integral aici.

Garda Nationala Antimafia

Le requérant souhaitait créer une association « la Garde Nationale Antimafia » dont le but était d’ « orienter les citoyens vers des formes d’autodéfense, dans le cadre législatif existant, contre la menace du crime organisé [...] l’association identifiera, par l’intermédiaire des mass media, les personnes impliquées dans le crime organisé et en constituera une base de données ». La Cour constate la violation de l’article 11 CEDH par la Roumanie : “une mesure aussi radicale que le rejet de la demande d’inscription, prise avant même que l’association ait commencé à mener des activités, apparaît disproportionnée au but visé et, partant, non nécessaire dans une société démocratique.”

Pe larg aici.

Comunicat MAE.

Joi, 11 octombrie 2007, Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului s-a pronunţat în cauza Bozgan împotriva României, constatând încălcarea dreptului la asociere, garantat de articolul 11 din Convenţia pentru apărarea drepturilor omului şi a libertăţilor fundamentale.

În fapt, reclamantul a solicitat Judecătoriei Arad înregistrarea Asociaţiei „Garda Naţională Antimafia” în Registrul Asociaţiilor şi Fundaţiilor. Această cerere a fost respinsă atât de Judecătoria Arad, printr-o încheiere din data de 24 aprilie 2002, cât şi de Tribunalul Arad, în recursul introdus de reclamant.

Curtea Europeană a constatat că, în speţă, asociaţia a cărei înregistrare a fost cerută nu a întreprins, înaintea înregistrării, nicio activitate care ar putea constitui un indiciu că ar avea intenţia de a desfăşura activităţi anticonstituţionale, contrare celor înscrise în statut. În plus, Curtea a constatat că respingerea cererii de înscriere a împiedicat însăşi constituirea asociaţiei. O măsură atât de radicală a fost considerată disproporţionată faţă de scopul urmărit, nefiind necesară într-o societate democratică. Mai mult, Curtea a constatat că cererea reclamantului a fost respinsă fără ca instanţele să-i ceară să remedieze eventualele iregularităţi din statut, faptul de a-i cere să iniţieze o nouă procedură constituindu-se într-o sarcină disproporţionată.

Prin urmare, Curtea a apreciat că a fost încălcat articolul 11 din Convenţie. Deşi reclamantul a solicitat 20.000 EUR pentru prejudiciul suferit, Curtea a considerat că recunoaşterea încălcării dreptului constituie o satisfacţie echitabilă suficientă şi nu a acordat nicio sumă cu acest titlu.

Constitutionalism si drepturile omului

Intre o Constitutie si Conventie internationala se pot naste raporturi juridice diferite, chiar si Constitutia noastra spunand ceva despre prioritatea conventiilor internationale in materia drepturilor omului.

Chestiunea este complexa (vedeti unele decizii ale Curtii Constitutionale romane care fac referire la CEDO si inlatura trimiterile la incalcarea Conventiei) fiind in prezenta unei cooperari si a unei integrari.

In privina cooperarii, Consiliul Europei face eforturi, prin programul HELP (prezentat aici), de diseminare a cunostintelor, in scopul unei armonizari coerente a domeniului.

David Szymczak, Les Conventions européennes des droits de l’homme et le juge constitutionnel national, Bruylant, 2007.

Cautari “focalizate” (II). “Drepturile omului in dreptul comunitar”

In lista noastra de cautari observat-am ceva demn de o mica discutie …suna asa: “Drepturile omului in dreptul comunitar“; ei bine, pe aceasta tema s-au scris f. f. multe lucruri. La noi mai putin, la altii mai mult.

Totul a inceput cu jurisprudenta CJCE de la inceputul anilor 70 (care a precizat ca dr. omului fac parte din “principiile generale de drept” ale Comunitatilor).

Apoi a venit momentu’ Maastricht, nu? (se cheama asa pt. ca pe acolo trece raul Maas.. )

Urmat de un aviz al CJCE cu privire la posibila aderare a Comunitatii la CEDO. pt. ca, demn de amintit, CJCE a recurs uneori la practica celeilalte instante “europene” (unii  ;)  confunda Consiliul Europei cu Consiliul European ori cu Consiliul UE…).

Apoi sunt cateva cauze f. interesante din anii ‘90 la CJCE in materia asta, o frumusete, nu alta…

Si, in sfarsit, nu trebuie uitate discutiunile pe marginea “Cartei” ;) si a includerii ei in Tratatul constitutional si, mai nou, in tratatele de reforma…

Asadar, fara sa dam mura in gura, cam acestea ar fi - pe scurt - etapele problematicii respective…

De azi (9.10 a.c.): cautare “libertatea omului“. aici tertzium non datur: ori “libertate la peluza” ori o libertate pe care statul nu o poate garanta: libertatea interioara a omului sau, altfel spus, dreptul la viata interioara…

PS. O alta cautare releva o indubitabila scurtcircuitare mentala: “drepturile libertatii“…

PS2. E. g. articolul F alineatul (2) UE (Maastricht, prin urmare):

“Uniunea respectă drepturile fundamentale, aşa cum sunt garantate de Convenţia europeană pentru apărarea drepturilor omului şi a libertăţilor fundamentale, semnată la Roma la 4 noiembrie 1950, şi aşa cum rezultă acestea din tradiţiile constituţionale comune statelor membre, ca principii generale de drept comunitar“.

Interesant, nu?

Avocatul poate vorbi. Despre CEDO.

Intr-o hotarare recenta -  Cauza C-305/05 - , CJCE ne informeaza ca reglementarile sale sunt bine mersi, ceea ce ne dorim si noua. Mai ales, ca spune ca respecta art. 6 din CEDO desi UE sau CE sau vreo institutie (?!-nici nu se poate, evident) nu sunt parte la CEDO.

In fine, distractia este asigurata pentru avocati:

Obligatiile de informare si de cooperare cu autoritătile responsabile de combaterea spălării banilor prevăzute la articolul 6 alineatul (1) din Directiva 91/308/CEE a Consiliului din 10 iunie 1991 privind prevenirea folosirii sistemului financiar în scopul spălării banilor, asa cum a fost modificată prin Directiva 2001/97/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 4 decembrie 2001, si impuse avocatilor de articolul 2a punctul 5 din această directivă, tinând cont de articolul 6 alineatul (3) al doilea paragraf din aceasta, nu încalcă dreptul la un proces echitabil, astfel cum acesta este garantat de articolul 6 din CEDO si de articolul 6 alineatul (2) din Tratatul UE.

 

Ne “bucuram” pentru aceasta concluzie, pe o puteti citi, cu tot cu amanunte aici.

Jean Castelain, Le secret professionnel de l’avocat face au juge communautaire, Gazette du Palais, 127/2007.

Franta - Consiliul de Stat - raspunderea statului & CEDO

O decizie din februarie 2007.  Textul deciziei & analiza.