Cercle Alexis de Tocqueville
Cercle de réflexion sur la manière de gouverner


Vous étés ici : accueil > articles

THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL DOES NOT MEAN CASE LAW MUST BE FROZEN

By Sébastien VANNEROT
Posted Jun. 29, 2009


e-mail E-mail this page   print Printer-friendly page

By two judgements rendered on 11 June 2009, the first civil chamber of the Supreme Judicial Court (Cour de Cassation) judged that the “legal security - invoked on the basis to the right of a fair trial – to contest the immediate application of a new legal solution following a case law change, does not imply the right to freeze case law provided that the petitioner is not prevented to access to a judge (not clear, can you restate?)

On 29 June 1999, the Supreme Court of Appeals changed its case law and decided that the doctor’s obligation would be henceforth a result obligation of security towards their patients

In these two trials, two patients had been contaminated by Hepatitis C during their anti-varicose treatment between 1981 and 1986. Tribunals and courts of appeal competent on these both litigations had acknowledged the doctor’s responsibility (cf. Cour of Appeal of Bordeaux, 5th Chamber, 15 March 2007 and 16 April 2008).

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the doctor claimed that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing and therefore, by this rule application, any application of a new legal rule resulting from a modification of case law would disentitle such party from its right to a fair trial. In these instances, the doctor’s liability was, in the domain of nosocomial infections, limited to due care obligation until 28 June 1999. On 29 June 1999, the Supreme Court of Appeals changed its case law and decided that the doctor’s obligation would be henceforth a result obligation of security towards their patients.

The doctor argued that application of case law of 29 June 1999 for acts committed before this date disentitled doctors from a fair trial to the extent that it is reproached them for having not applied an obligation which, at the date of the facts, was inexistent.

The Supreme Judicial Court rejected his appeal. The legal security invoked by the doctor does not include the right to an unchangeable case law.

 
e-mail E-mail this page
print Printer-friendly page
 
 


 
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL DOES NOT MEAN CASE LAW MUST BE FROZEN



DERNIERS ARTICLES






 








| Accueil | A propos de nous | Rejoignez-nous | Contactez-nous | Vos idées | Conditions d'utilisation |



Association Cercle Alexis de Tocqueville (Cercle de réflexion sur la manière de gouverner)
Association Loi 1901, enregistrée à la Préfecture de Police de Paris le 13 septembre 2004 – N° 00166980
Siège : 60, rue Emeriau – 75015 Paris


Copyright 2009. Tous droits réservés.

© Cercle Alexis de Tocqueville

Site réalisé par DAMSYS

i


Abonnez-vous à notre flux RSS, utilisez des titres gratuits pour votre site Internet