France’s violation of author’s rights under domestic law did not affect the author’s rights under the Covenant

Facts

The author of the communication is Thierry Ehrmann, a national of France. He is a sculptor diagnosed with an incurable genetic disorder who was placed under a guardianship. He opened a museum on his property and did some work to the outside which are part of his oeuvre. Local authorities claimed that the works were not registered and failed to comply with town planning regulations. He was ordered to remove the works and sentenced to a coercive fine. Suit was filed seeking compliance. The author requested that the court set aside the proceedings, arguing that his right to a fair trial had been violated because his administrator had not been informed of the proceedings against him and he had not undergone psychiatric evaluation. The court dismissed the author’s arguments. The author appealed unsuccessfully. The author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights but it was dismissed. The author claims the State party violated his fair trial rights under article 14 (1).

Admissibility

Despite the fact that the author brought the same claim to the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee concluded the claim is admissible because the European Court of Human Rights’ letter to the author was of such a summary nature that it could not be determined whether their decision was based in part on the merits. Statements made by the domestic court suggested that the author had raised the claims in lower proceedings.

Merits

The Committee noted that the author’s arguments were duly considered by national courts, and it is not in a position to determine the appropriateness of a psychiatric evaluation in place of judicial authorities. Here, the author did not demonstrate how the failure to order a psychiatric evaluation placed him at a disadvantage or hindered his exercise of the right to a fair trial in violation of article 14 (1). Moreover, the author was assisted by a lawyer throughout the proceedings and did not demonstrate how the absence of his administrator had an adverse effect on his right to a fair trial. Thus, while the State party failed to inform the author’s administrator, the Committee could not conclude that this failure constituted arbitrary conduct or a denial of justice or that the judges violated their obligation or independence or impartiality and did not find a violation of article 14 (1).