ZIELINSKI AND PRADAL & GONZALEZ AND OTHERS v. FRANCE - 24846/94;34165/96;34173/96

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 27 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), as amended by Protocol No. 11 [1] , and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court [1] , as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:

The Commission’s requests referred to former Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby France recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (former Article 46). The Government’s application referred to former Article 48. The object of the requests and of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of former Rules of Court A [3] , Mr Zielinski and Mr Pradal stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent them (former Rule 30).

Subsequently, Mr Costa withdrew from sitting in the Grand Chamber (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr A. Bacquet to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). Later, Mr J. Makarczyk and Mrs S. Botoucharova, substitute judges, replaced Mrs Palm and Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, who were unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 24 § 5 (b)).

In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 read in conjunction with Rules 100 § 1 and 24 § 6, a panel of the Grand Chamber decided on 14 January 1999 that the Gonzalez and Others case should be considered by the same Grand Chamber as the one already constituted to hear the Zielinski and Pradal case. Subsequently the Grand Chamber decided, on an application by the Government, to join the two cases (Rule 43 § 1).