Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35

October 2001

Desmots v. France (dec.) - 41358/98

Decision 23.10.2001 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Proceedings relating to a request for a transfer of a notary's office: Article 6 applicable

The applicant, a notary ( notaire ), applied to move his office to another area. After various bodies, including the Commissi on on the Location of Notaries’ Offices, had expressed their opposition to such a move, the Minister of Justice refused the application. The applicant applied to the Administrative Court to have that decision set aside. When his application was dismissed, he appealed to the Conseil d’Etat , which quashed the court’s judgment, holding that decisions on the relocation of solicitors’ offices fell within its own jurisdiction and were not subject to appeal. The Conseil d’Etat then dealt with the merits of the cas e itself and dismissed the application.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time): objection of incompatibility ratione materiae – under domestic law, the relocation of notaries’ offices fell within the Minister of Justice’s sphere of competence; th e commission responsible for issuing an opinion on the location of such offices had to carry out an overall examination, taking into account various factors, including those which had been relevant in this case: the office’s financial position and the bala nce between offices in the sector concerned. On this occasion the Minister had followed the commission’s opinion, although he was under no obligation to do so. The Conseil d’Etat ’s subsequent review of the application to set the decision aside had afforded the possibility of a judicial assessment of the points of law and fact raised by the applicant in contesting the Minister’s decision against him. The right to obtain the relocation of a notary’s office could therefore be said, at least on arguable grounds , to be recognised under domestic law. The fact that the Minister had some discretion in examining the application did not make that “right” any less “arguable”. Having regard to its undeniable pecuniary consequences, the right in question was a “civil” ri ght within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provision was applicable: admissible.

© 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