Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35

October 2001

Pannullo and Forte v. France - 37794/97

Judgment 30.10.2001 [Section III]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Delay in returning child's body to parents: violation

Respect for family life

Delay in returning child's body to parents: violation

Facts : The daughter of the applicants, who are both Italian nationals, died when she was rushed to hospita l shortly after undergoing a post-operative check-up. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Nanterre public prosecutor, and in July 1996 an inquiry into the causes of her death was opened. The investigating judge ordered an autopsy, which was carried out on 9 July 1996, and in September 1996 ordered a further expert opinion, a task which was assigned to Professor L. From the date of the autopsy onwards the applicants sent letters to various authorities, including the Italian Consulate General in Paris, with the aim of securing the return of their daughter’s body. The Italian Consul General approached the investigating judge on a number of occasions. He then contacted the public prosecutor, who sought an explanation from Professor L. In a written reply P rofessor L. stated that it would have been possible to return the body on 9 July 1996, that the investigating judge had been immediately notified of that possibility and that the Institute of Forensic Medicine had already contacted the judge several times. The public prosecutor requested the judge to order the return of the body. In February 1997 the judge issued the burial certificate, more than seven months after the girl’s death. The expert report was submitted two months later and in September 1997 it w as decided to take no further action on the complaint as there was no evidence to suggest that a criminal offence had been committed. The applicants argued that the French authorities’ delay in returning their daughter’s body to them had infringed their ri ght to respect for their private and family life.

Law : Article 8 – The interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing criminal offences. The requirements of the investigation had made it necessary for the French au thorities to remain in possession of the applicants’ daughter’s body for the time needed to carry out the autopsy, in other words until 9 July 1996. That had not been the case for the subsequent period, as was confirmed by Professor L.’s letter. Regardless of whether the delay had been attributable, as the Government had indicated, to the experts or to the judge’s “poor understanding of the medical evidence”, the interference in the instant case had been disproportionate to the aim pursued.

Article 41 – The Court decided to make an award for pecuniary damage in respect of the travel and subsistence expenses incurred during the applicants’ stay in France, and awarded them 100,000 French francs each for non-pecuniary damage.

© 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