Information Note on the Court’s case-law 64

May 2004

OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France - 42219/98 and 54563/00

Judgment 27.5.2004 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Equality of arms

Adoption of retroactive legislation during court proceedings involving the State: no violation

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Possessions

Debts of an undetermined amount due by the State

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Reimbursement at a lower rate than that expected by the applicants, following retroactive legislative intervention during court proceedings involving the State: no violation

Facts : The applicants are management bodies (OGECs), each of which manages a priva te school under a partnership contract with the State. The State was responsible for teachers' salaries and corresponding social-security contributions. A 1977 law established the principle of equality of treatment for teachers in private and state schools , particularly with regard to social-security measures; a decree was to determine the proportion of such payments which the State would assume in order to ensure this equalisation. Following the introduction of a supplementary pension scheme for teachers i n private schools, such schools were obliged to make an additional social-security payment at a rate of 1.5%. However, the equalisation rule established the principle that the State was responsible for paying the social-security charges. Nonetheless, since private schools were not excluded from the payment of contributions, the management bodies brought proceedings against the State to obtain reimbursement of the contributions. In May 1992 a judgment by the Conseil d'Etat allowed an application for full rei mbursement of these contributions at a rate of 1.5%, noting that the envisaged decree, which should have determined the State's share of contributions, had not been adopted. Following the judgment, the OGECs applied for reimbursement in full of the contrib utions. One OGEC won its claim. While the applicants' proceedings were pending, the legislature adopted section 107 of the Act of 31 December 1995, which was intended to settle, with retroactive effect, the question of the level of reimbursement to be born e by the State for those proceedings in which a final ruling had not been given. The Act provided for reimbursement by the State at a rate to be fixed by decree. A decree of 16 July 1996 fixed the rate at 0.062% and the applicants obtained reimbursement at that rate.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – When the applicants applied for reimbursement in full of the disputed contributions, they had not yet obtained judgment granting them a right to reimbursement in full, and the proceedings brought by them had not progressed beyond the appeal stage. Section 107 of the Act of 30 December 1995 had the officially recognised purpose of providing a financial settlement to the disputes to which the State was a party and of altering the outcome of the pending proceedings. In conseque nce, the applicants had been able to obtain the requested reimbursement only at the rate of 0.062%, rather than the anticipated 1.5%. Thus, the right to reimbursement as such had not been infringed by the legislative measure; only the level of such reimbur sement was affected. Accordingly, the question arose whether, at the outset, the applicants had legitimately been able to claim reimbursement in full of the contributions. The judgment of May 1992 had set a “default” amount for the disputed reimbursements on account of the “position of the legislation in force at the material time”. The applicants could not have failed to be aware that the State was not obliged to reimburse contributions at the rate of 1.5% and that this rate had been chosen by the Conseil d'Etat for pragmatic reasons alone and in order to fill a vacuum created by the lack of a decree fixing the State's proportion of the contribution. Consequently, the legislature had intervened in this case to correct a technical flaw in the law. By fixing the ra te for reimbursement of social-security contributions and altering the outcome of the pending proceedings, the legislature had intended to fill a legal vacuum and re-establish parity and equality in the position of teachers working in private and state sch ools. In reality, by bringing proceedings, the outcome of which had been altered by the adoption of the Act of December 1995 and the decree of July 1996, the applicants had sought to obtain a windfall by taking advantage of a loophole in the regulations, a nd were aware, or ought to have been aware, that the State would for its part seek to remedy the legal shortcoming highlighted by the Conseil d'Etat in its 1992 judgment. In applying to the courts, the applicants had not therefore legitimately been able to claim full reimbursement of the contributions. In short, the legislature's intervention had been entirely foreseeable and had been clearly and compellingly justified in the general interest. In those conditions, the applicants could not legitimately compl ain of a breach of the principle of equality of arms.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The legislation required the State to reimburse the contributions paid by the OGECs, without exceeding what was required to comply w ith the principle of equalisation of the position of teachers in private and state education. Accordingly, the applicants had a definite right to payment from the State, in principle if not with regard to the amount. However, the law had provided that the method of calculating the State's contribution would be fixed by decree. Accordingly, the proportion of social-security contributions assumed by the State in order to ensure equal treatment for teachers had not been fixed, given that no such decree existed ; equally, the amount due to the OGECs had not been determined. The Court did not rule categorically on whether the applicants' claims constituted “possessions” within the meaning of the Convention, but accepted for the sake of argument that the applicants had acquired rights to reimbursement which were “equivalent” to “possessions”. The State's participation was to have been fixed by decree, but this decree had not yet been adopted when the Conseil d'Etat had handed down its judgment in May 1992 and, in th e absence of such a decree, fixed the rate of reimbursement at 1.5%. Consequently, the Conseil d'Etat 's judgment could not be considered a judicial decision having final effect which recognised and determined the claims of all French OGECs. In addition, wh en the applicants had applied to the courts, their expectation of obtaining reimbursement of the contributions had been “legitimate” only with regard to the proportion necessary for ensuring equal treatment between the private and state sectors. Further, t he legislature's retrospective intervention had not infringed the applicants' right to reimbursement as such; it had merely fixed the value of the claim at less than the sum hoped for by the applicants. The Court was of the opinion that the general interes t in dispelling all doubt as to the rate of reimbursement of the contributions that was necessary to ensure equal treatment had to be regarded as overriding and taking precedence over the applicants' interest in requesting full reimbursement of the contrib utions paid and thereby seeking to take advantage of a loophole in the regulations.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken together with Article 14 – The Court held that there was no need to examine sepa rately these other complaints.

© 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