Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19761210-695675
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 14:33:02+00:00
Document Index: 327196457

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 25", "l'article 50", '§ 2']

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Recevable ; requête jointe à la requête n° 6210/73Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6956/75Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1976-12-10;6956.75 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 6956/75 X . v/the UNITED KINGDOM X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 10 December 1976 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 10 dÃ©cembre 1976 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Competence ratione persenae of the Commission : The Government of the United Kingdom cannot be held responsible, under the terms of the Convention, for the acts of a solicitor, even though the latter is an officer of the court subject to disciplinary juridiction of the higher courts . CompÃ©tence ratione personae de la Commission : Le Gouvernment du RoyaumeUni ne rÃ©pond pas, au regard de le Convention, des actes d'un solicitor, quand bien mÃ©me ce dernier est considÃ©rÃ© comme un officier de justice soumis 6 la juridiction disciplinaire des cours supÃ©rieures .
Summary of the relevant facts ( franÃ§ais : voir p . 104) The applicant, having met with a treffic accident has obtained legal aid in order to institute civil proceedings end claim damages from the person whom he held resposnsible . His solicitor issued a writ and entered into negotiations with the insurance company of the author of the accident . The applicant declined a first offer of settlement which his counsel had advised him to accept ; as a consequence legal aid was withdrawn . A second increased offer was made by the insurance company . Applicant's counsel urged the applicant to accept given his remote chances of success in court, while adding that if he did not accept, he could no longer act for him . He then agreed to the offer . Subsequently, he tried to resile from the settlement assisted by another solicitor, but the court dismissed his claim .
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant has complained that by pressing him to accept a settlement of his case, his solicitor violated his rights under Art . 6 111 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of a person's civil rights, and that he also violated his rights under Art . 10 of the Convention . Under Art . 25 (1) of the Convention, the Commission may only admit an application from a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals ,
where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Pa rt ies of the rights or freedoms set out in the Convention and where that Pa rt y has recognised this competence of the Commission . The Commission may not, therefore, admit applications directed against private individuals . In this respect the Commission refers to its constant jurisprudence ( see e .g . the decisions on the admissibility of applications Nos . Nos . 172/56, Yearbook 1, pp . 211, 215 and 1599/62, Yearbook 6, pp . 348, 356) . The applicant, however, has submi tted that since his solicitor was an "officer of the cou rt " and acting as such in reaching the se tt lement, his actions engaged the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government . In this connection the Commission observes that S .50 of the Solicitors Act 1957 provides that " Any person duly admitted as a solicitor shall be an officer of the Supreme Cou rt " and that in consequence solicitors are subject to ce rt ain disciplina ry jurisdiction of the higher cou rt s . However, a solicitor cannot be said, purely by vi rtue of this status, to be an official of the United Kingdom Government whose actions could engage its responsibility under the Convention, since, within the limits of the established rules as to his professional conduct, he is responsible only to the client by whom he is engaged and is independent of any organ of Government .
It follows that this pa rt of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) thereof .
RÃ©sumÃ© des feits pertinent s Victime d'un accident de la circufation, le requÃ©rant a obtenu l'assistance judiciaire pour intenter action contre la personne qu'if jugeait responsebfe . Son solicitor introduisit action puis entre en nÃ©gociations avec la compagnie assurent l'auteur de l'accident. Le requÃ©rent refusa une premiÃ©re offre que le solicitor lui conseillait d'accepter, ce qui eut pour effet la rÃ©vocation de l'assistance judiciaire . Une seconde offre, plus Ã©levÃ©e, fut formulÃ©e par fa compagnie d'assurance . Le solicitor pressa le requÃ©rant de l'accepter Ã©tant donnÃ© les faibles chances de succÃ©s d'un procÃ©s, ejoutant qu'if dÃ©poserait son mandat en cas de nouveau refus du requÃ©rant. Celui-ci accepta la trensaction . Par la suite, il tenta de revenir sur la transaction avec l'aide d'un autre solicitor mais fut dÃ©boutÃ© par le tribunal. (TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant se plaint qu'en le pressant d'accepter une transaction, son solicitor a violÃ© les droits que lui reconnait l'article 6, Â§ 1, de la Convention . Cette disposition garantit Ã toute personne que sa cause sera entendue Ã© quitablement lorsqu'il s'agit de dÃ©cider de contestations sur ses droits de caractÃ¨re civil . Le requÃ©rant a aussi allÃ©guA que son solicitor avait violÃ© les droits que lui reconnaÃ®t l'a rt icle 10 de la Convention . Aux termes de l'article 25, 3 1,de la Convention, la Commission ne peut Ã¨tre saisie d'une requÃ©te par une pe rs onne physique, une organisation non gouvernementale ou un groupe de pa rt iculiers que si le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue une violation par l'une des Parties contractantes des droits et libe rtÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention et si la Pa rt ie contractante mise en cause a dÃ©clarÃ© reconnaitre la compÃ©tence de la Commission en cett e matiÃ©re . La Commission ne peut, par consÃ©quent, retenir des requÃ©tes dirigÃ©e s
contre des simples particuliers . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission renvoie Ã sa jurisprudence constante (cf . par exemple les dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes NÂ° 172/56, Annuaire 1, pp . 211, 215 et NÂ° 1599/62, Annuaire 6, pp . 348, 356) .
Toutefois, le requÃ©rant a fait valoir que, son solicitor Ã©tant un officier de justice la officer of the court n) et ayant agi en cette qualitÃ© lors de le conclusion de la transaction, ses actes engageaient la responsabilitÃ© du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni . La Commission observe Ã ce sujet que l'article 50 de la loi sur les solicitors de 1957 (Solicitor Act, 1957) prÃ©voit que Â« toute personne dÃ¹ment admise comme solicitor est un agent de la Cour suprÃªme n 10 an officer of the Supreme Court al et qu'en consÃ©quence les solicitors sont, dans une certaine mesure, soumis Ã© la jÃ»iidiction disciplinaire des cours supÃ©rieures . NÃ©anmoins, ce statut ne saurait suffire Ã faire du solicitor un fonctionnaire du Gouvernement britannique engageant par ses actes la responsabilitÃ© de ce dernier au regard de la Convention . En effet, dans les limites des rÃ©gles qui ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablies pour rÃ©gir sa conduite professionnelle, il n'est responsable que devant le client qui l'a mandatÃ© et ne dÃ©pend d'aucun organe du Gouvernement . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est, ratione personae, incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention, au sens de son article 27, Â§ 2 .
- 105-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 10/12/1976Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page