WPCg0 ?ǥ)Hǃ ui9/uv.zPXJ^Af<9z;ZAWvX=ۀ)q<*@@`#b pxWaU*GT刟#| 9ڪGNrpwUE׽B}G\_kWzHH `7àrTB?HARZݪN< SDm }?pfڥ{G_?Ul!̨3˓w.(.t{$0Prk $ mb\F]\d z;"e\XM <|ER4k y_Եa9kGP|9nB-%k, 0v 0`d! 0`! 0`$" 0`" 0`" 08D# 0|# 02N$ 0$ 0:|% 0Y% 0_& 0 n& 0jx' 0( B*f* D/* D+* 0* D/n, 0, 06k- 0- 0:. 0^. 0<A/U6}/U>/U*///^ 0w'04+0?0N0 mP0HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($UKUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K?<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 75(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS4)2dxd0KS.SampleK?<6X9`(Courier NewKS@\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial. D-ertyBarj3|xU !UKUS.,  _ COMMITTEEONTHEELIMINATIONOFRACIALDISCRIMINATION  _Regerat_Ԁetal.v.France  CommunicationNo24/2002 p _____21_ԀMarch2003 P  _CERD_/C/62/D/24/2002 0  ADMISSIBILITY P   Submittedby:_Nikolas_Ԁ_Regerat_Ԁetal.(representedbycounsel,Ms.YolandaMolina_Ugarte_)   Allegedvictims:Thepetitioners  Stateparty:France  Dateofcommunication:3August2001(dateofinitialletter) p    Decisiononadmissibility  @   1.ThepetitionersareMr._Nikolas_Ԁ_Regerat_,Mr._Mizel_Ԁ_Alibert_,Ms.Annie_Bacho_,Ms._Kattin_ ` _Bergara_,Mr.Jakes_Bortayrou_,Ms._Maritxu_Ԁ_Castillon_,Mr.JeanMichel_Ceccon_,Mr._Txomin_ P _Chembero_,Ms._Maialen_Ԁ_Errecart_,Ms.Irene_Ithursarry_ԀandMr.Emmanuel_Torree_,Frenchcitizens @ residinginFrance.Asmembersofthe_Euskal_Ԁ_Herriko_Ԁ_Alfabetatze_Ԁ_Euskalduntze_Ԁ_Koordinakundea_ 0 (_AEK_)Association,theyclaimtobevictimsofaviolationbyFranceofarticle1oftheConvention.   Theyarerepresentedbycounsel.  ! Thefactsaspresentedbythepetitioners  #!  2.1The_AEK_ԀAssociation(hereinafterreferredtoas"theAssociation")isanorganizationwhich % # teachestheBasquelanguagetoadults.Inordertopublicizeitsexistenceandactivity,theAssociation p&!$ regularlyengagesinpublicitycampaignsthroughthepost,addressingitsmailingsintheBasque `'"% language. P(#&  2.2Tothisend,theAssociationconcludedwiththePostOfficeastandardcontractformass 0*%( mailings.Thisagreement,called"_Postimpact_Ԁ_mcanisable_",isreservedforcommercialmailings.  +p&) Thepreferentialrateisbasedonthepossibilityofautomaticmailprocessingbyasorterequipped ,`'* withalaserscanner.Thescannerrequiresthatmailingsconformtospecificregulationsconcerning -P(+ messagecontentandtheformatofthemaileditem. -@),  2.3Afterfirsthavingbenefitedfromapreferentialrateof1.87Frenchfrancsforeachitem,the  AssociationwasinformedbythePostOfficeinMay1998thatinfuturetheratewouldbehigher  2.18francsforeachitembecausethenamesofthevillagesthatappearedontheenvelopeswere  writtenintheBasquelanguage.ThePostOfficepointedoutthat,unlikemailaddressedinFrench, p mailaddressedinaregionallanguagecouldnotbeprocessedautomaticallyandentailedan `  additionalcostoverandabovethepreferentialrate. P   2.4On18February1999,thePresidentoftheAssociation,Mr._Nikolas_Ԁ_Regerat_,lodgedacomplaint 0  againstthePostOfficeintheBayonneCorrectionalCourt,consideringthatthePostOffice'sfailure  p  tomaintaintheagreedpreferentialrateconstituteddiscrimination. `   2.5Initsjudgementof3June1999,theBayonneCorrectionalCourtacquittedthePostOfficeof @  theoffenceofdiscriminationanddismissedthedemand,madebytheAssociationasapartytothe 0  proceedings,thatthePostOfficebeorderedtopaydamages.Thecourtpointedoutthatithadnot   beenestablishedthatthePostOfficehadchangeditsratefortheAssociation'smassmailingsforone  ofthereasonssetoutinarticle2251ofthePenalCode,whichdealswiththeoffenceof  discrimination.1/ThecourtconsideredthatthePostOfficehadchangedtherateforpurelytechnical  reasons.   2.6On9and10June1999,theAssociationandthepublicprosecutorlodgedanappealagainstthe p judgement.On21June2000,thePauCourtofAppealacquittedthePostOfficeoftheoffenceof ` discriminationanddismissedtheAssociation'sclaims.2/ P  2.7On22June2000,theAssociationappealedtotheCourtofCassation.On16January2001,the 0 CourtofCassationdismissedtheappealandnotifiedtheAssociationofitsdecisioninaletterdated  p 27February2001fromthepublicprosecutorofthePauCourtofAppeal. `  2.8On6July2000,theAssociationmadearequestforlegalaid.Initsdecisionof14December @ 2000,thelegalaidofficedeniedtherequest,consideringthat"noseriousargumentforquashingcan 0 bebroughtagainstthecontesteddecision".On22January2001,theAssociationlodgedanappeal   againstthisdenialwiththefirstpresidentoftheCourtofCassation.3/Inhisdecisionof8February ! 2001,thefirstpresidentoftheCourtofCassationdismissedtheappealonthegroundsthatthe "  examinationoftheevidencesubmittedintheproceedingshadnotgivenrisetoanyseriousargument #! forquashingthecontesteddecision. $"   Thecomplaint  p&!$  3.1ThepetitionerschallengethePostOffice'sposition.TheypointoutthattheAssociationhasto P(#& usetheBasquelanguage,particularlyinitsrelationswithitstargetedpublic,inordertodisseminate @)$' itsobjectivesandactivitiesforpromotingtheBasquelanguage.Accordingtothepetitioners,since 0*%( thePostOfficeisresponsibleforprovidingapublicservice,itsimpositionofhigherratesfor  +p&) correspondenceaddressedintheBasquelanguagediscriminatesagainstthespeakersofthatlanguage ,`'* andpersonsbelongingtotheBasqueethnicgroup. -P(+  -@), 3.2Inaddition,thepetitionersrejectthetechnicalargumentputforwardbythePostOffice,which  wasupheldbytheFrenchcourts.Theyconsiderthatitistechnologicallysimpletoaddthe158  namesoftheBasquevillagestothecomputersthatcontroltheautomaticsortingofmail,andthat  thePostOffice'supdatingofitscomputerfacilitiesforthatpurposewouldentailonlyminimal  difficultyandnotunreasonablecost. p  3.3ThepetitionersthereforeconsiderthatthePostOffice'sdiscriminatorybehaviourconstitutesa P  violationofarticle1oftheConvention. @   3.4Finally,thepetitionersconsiderthatallavailabledomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.  p    TheStateParty'sobservationsonadmissibility  P   4.1Initsobservationsdated29May2002,theStatepartychallengestheadmissibilityofthecommunication. 0   4.2Itmaintainsthatthepetitionershavenotexhausteddomesticremedies.Inthecaseinpoint,the  Associationhad,intheBayonneregionalcourtandthePauCourtofAppeal,putforwardthe  argumentofallegeddiscriminatorypracticeincontraventionoftheprovisionsofFrenchpenallaw.  AccordingtotheStateparty,theAssociationhadnotadducedanyargumenttosupportitsappeal  totheCourtofCassation.Thelackofanargumenttosupporttheappealhadledthecriminal  divisionoftheCourtofCassationtodismisstheappealinitsrulingof16January2001. p  4.3Inthisregard,theStatepartypointsoutthatlegalaidtotheAssociationhadinfactbeengranted P onaprovisionalbasison11July2000,andthattheJeanPierre_Ghestin_Ԁ_SCP_Ԁ4/hadbeendesignated @ forthatpurpose.Subsequently,pursuanttothedecisionofthelegalaidofficeoftheCourtof 0 Cassationissuedon14December2000andcommunicatedon21December2000,therequesthad  p beendefinitivelydeniedonthegroundsoftheprovisionsofarticle7oftheActof10July1991, ` consideringthat"noseriousargumentforquashingcanbebroughtagainstthecontesteddecision". P  4.4TheStatepartyexplainsthatthesystemoflegalaidinFrancehasbeendesignedtoreconcile 0 therightofthemostdisadvantagedtoadefencewiththeinterestoftheeffectiveadministrationof   justice,whichshouldnotbehinderedbydilatoryormanifestlyunfoundedclaims.Alegalaidsystem ! cannotoperatewithoutamechanismthatallowsittoselectcasesthatarelikelytoreceivelegalaid. "   4.5ThissystemwasintroducedbyActNo.91647of10July1991anditsImplementingDecree $" No.911266of19December1991,whichwereinforcewhentheAssociationappealedtotheCourt % # ofCassation.Article2oftheActprovidesthat"physicalpersonswhodonothavesufficient p&!$ resourcestoasserttheirrightsincourtmaybenefitfromlegalaid.[...]Suchaidmay,inexceptional `'"% cases,begrantedtononprofitcorporatebodiesbasedinFranceandlackingsufficientresources". P(#&  4.6TheStatepartypointsoutthatalthough,whenanappealisbroughtbeforethecriminaldivision 0*%( oftheCourtofCassation,therequestforlegalaiddoesnotaffectthetimelimitsforthefilingofthe  +p&) brief,article20oftheabovementionedActnonethelessacknowledgesthat"inurgentcases[...] ,`'* legalaidmaybegrantedonaprovisionalbasis[...]".Thepetitionerswereinfactgrantedaidona -P(+ provisionalbasis.Inthisregard,theStatepartyemphasizesthattheadvocateincouncilappointed -@), onaprovisionalbasistoprovidelegalaiddidnotdeemitappropriatetoputforwardanyargument  insupportoftheappeal,astheCourtofCassationpointedoutinitsruling.   4.7Moreover,nothingpreventedtheAssociation,asthepartybringingitscasebeforetheCourtof  Cassation,fromfilingabriefitself,adducingallthelegalargumentsitdeemedrelevantinsupport p ofitsappeal.Pursuanttoarticle584oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,"Thepartyappealingtothe `  CourtofCassation,eitheratthetimeofitsdeclaration,orwithinthefollowing10days,mayfile, P  withtheregistryofthecourtthathandeddownthecontesteddecision,asignedbriefcontainingits @  argumentsforquashingthedecision."AccordingtotheStateparty,theAssociationcannot_plead_ 0  ignoranceinordertojustifyitsfailuretofileapersonalbriefsince,duringtheappealprocess,itwas  p  assistedbyacounselwhocouldnothavebeenunawareofthelegalregulationsgoverningtheforms `  orconditionsofappealsandwhoshouldhaveinformedhisclientsoftheproceduralformalitiesthat P  hadtobeobserved. @   4.8Consequently,thepetitionerswhotodayareclaimingbeforetheCommitteediscrimination   underarticle1oftheConvention,owingtotheratesappliedbytheFrenchPostOffice,didnot  enabletheCourtofCassationtorespondtotheirallegations.Thecommunicationthereforedoesnot  meettherequirementsofarticle14,paragraph7(a),oftheConvention.    CommentsbythepetitionersontheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibility    5.1Intheircommentsdated31January2003,thepetitionerschallengetheStateparty'sconclusions ` concerningthenonexhaustionofdomesticremedies. P  5.2TheycontendthattheywereunabletosupporttheirappealintheCourtofCassationbecause 0 theirrequestforlegalaidhadbeendenied.TheparticipationofalawyerintheCourtofCassation  p alawyerspecializingexclusivelyinsuchcourtswasessentialandwasthebestwayofensuringan ` effectivedefence. P  5.3Theyalsomaintainthattheydidnothaveaneffectivedomesticremedysince,ontwooccasions, 0 thelegalaidofficeoftheCourtofCassationandthefirstpresidentoftheCourtofCassation   consideredthatnoseriousargumentforquashingthedecisioncouldbeadduced. !   IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee  #!  6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimcontainedinacommunication,theCommitteeontheElimination % # ofRacialDiscriminationmust,inaccordancewithrule91ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhether p&!$ ornotitisadmissibleundertheConvention. `'"%  6.2TheCommitteenotestheStateparty'sclaimthatthecomplaintbythepetitionersisinadmissible @)$' owingtothenonexhaustionofdomesticremedies,insofarasnoargumentparticularlythatof 0*%( discriminationwasputforwardtosupporttheirappealbeforetheCourtofCassation.The  +p&) petitionersrepliedthattheirappealcouldnotbeupheldbecausetheirrequestforlegalaidhadbeen ,`'* deniedandthat,moreover,thedecisionstodenylegalaid,whichwerebasedontheabsenceofa -P(+ seriousargumentforquashing,deprivedthemofaneffectivedomesticremedy. -@),  6.3TheCommitteenotes,inthefirstplace,thatthepetitionersdidnotfileapersonalbriefin  supportoftheirappealincassation,arightprovidedunderarticle584oftheCodeofPenal  Procedureandwhichtheydidnotuseinspiteoftheassistanceofacounselduringtheappeal  processwhoshouldhaveinformedthemoftheproceduralrulesfortheirappeals.Inthesecond p place,theCommitteenotesthat,from11July2000,thepetitionershadtheservicesofanadvocate `  incouncilappointedonaprovisionalbasistoprovidelegalaidandthatthelatterdidnotdeemit P  appropriatetoputforward,intheCourtofCassation,anyargumentinsupportoftheappeal,afact @  thatthepetitionersdonotdispute.TheCommitteeconsidersthat,ontheabovementionedgrounds, 0  thesubsequentdefinitivedenialoftherequestforlegalaiddidnotinanywaybindtheCourtof  p  Cassationwithrespecttoitsdecisionregardingthepetitioners'appeal;thatthepetitioners' `  reservationsastotheeffectivenessoftheirappealdidnotexemptthem,therefore,fromexercising P  theirremedybyadducingtheircomplaintofdiscrimination;andthatconsequently,thedecisionnot @  toexercisethatremedywastheresponsibilityofthepetitionersassistedbycounselandcannotbe 0  attributedtotheStateparty.    6.4Inthelightoftheforegoing,theCommitteeconsidersthatthepetitionershavenotmetthe  requirementsofarticle14,paragraph7(a),oftheConvention.   7.TheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscriminationthereforedecides:   (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; `  (b)ThatthisdecisionshallbetransmittedtotheStatepartyandtothepetitioners. @   [DoneinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theFrenchtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequentlyto ` beissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttotheGeneral P Assembly.] @   Notes  ! 1/Article2251ofthePenalCode:"discriminationisdefinedasanydistinctionmadeagainst #! corporatebodiesonthegroundsof[88]actualorsupposedmembershipornonmembershipof $" agivenethnicgroup[or]nation[88]ofmembersorcertainmembersofsuchcorporatebodies". % #  2/ThecourtnotedthatdiscriminatoryintentcouldnotbeinferredfromthemerefactthatthePost `'"% OfficehadnottakenthetechnicalmeasurestoenabletheopticalscanningofaddressesintheBasque P(#& language.Moreover,itpointedoutthatthePostOfficehadofferedtheAssociationanother @)$' preferentialrate,admittedlylessadvantageousthanthefirstbutneverthelesslowerthanthenormal 0*%( rate.  +p&)  3/Insupportofitsappeal,theAssociationinvokedtheabsenceofgroundsforthedecisiontorefuse -P(+ therequest;theviolationoftherighttolegalaidinsofarasithadbeenestablishedthatthe -@), AssociationlackedthemeanstomeetthecostsofalawyerintheCourtofCassation;andthefact  thatthecontesteddecisionmadeitimpossiblefortheAssociationtobringitscasebefore  internationalbodiesowingtothenonexhaustionofdomesticremedies.   4/SocitCivile_Professionnelle_Ԁ[ProfessionalPartnership]. p