CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016
1.
The authors of the communication are a married couple of French nationals: P.F., born
on 22 May 1933, 1 and M.F., born on 23 May 1958. They claim that the State party has
violated their rights under articles 2 (3), 7, 14 (1) and 17 of the Covenant. France acceded to
the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on 17 February 1984. The authors are represented by
counsel, William Woll.
The facts as submitted by the authors
2.1
On 2 February 1987, the authors hired a contractor to build a house in the town of
Fayence, France. To finance the project, they took out a loan from Crédit foncier de France.
The loan was for 450,000 French francs (€68,602) and it was backed by a mortgage based on
the value of their lot and their future house.
2.2
As a result of various defects attributable to the contractor, the authors turned to the
courts for the payment of damages. On 14 June 1990, the Draguignan Tribunal de Grande
Instance (court of major jurisdiction) ruled in their favour, and the contractor was compelled
to pay a sum of 219,453 francs (€33,455) to enable the authors to finish building their house
and repair the defects. The contractor appealed this ruling before the Court of Appeal of Aixen-Provence. According to the authors, their lawyer made a mistake during the trial. 2 On 10
June 1993, the Court reduced the amount of the monetary award to be paid by the contractor
to 80,546 francs (€12,279), obliging the authors to reimburse the overpayment they had
received pursuant to the ruling that had been partially reversed on appeal.
2.3
As they were unable to pay back the sum, the authors asked the lawyer who had been
in the wrong to make the payment, but he refused. The contractor decided to seek the
enforcement of the decision and requested the amount of the overpayment from the authors.
They submitted an application for a suspension of action that was rejected by a lower court
and on appeal. The contractor had the rent paid to the authors by their tenant garnished
starting on 27 October 1995. The authors brought an urgent action before the Nîmes Tribunal
de Grande Instance to compel the lawyer and his insurer to pay the sum requested by the
contractor.3 On 15 July 1996, without waiting for the Nîmes court to rule, the contractor
initiated proceedings for seizure of immovables. The authors requested that the sale at auction
be declared null and void, but on 28 February 1997 Judge X rejected the request. In a ruling
of 6 March 1998, the authors’ claims were dismissed, and they were ordered to pay damages
for delaying action. On 18 March 1998, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence, finding that
the contractor had never had an enforcement order, overturned the decision of 28 February
1997. On 26 June 1998, the Draguignan court found the order for the seizure of immovables
null and void but ordered the authors to pay damages.
2.4
All the proceedings initiated by the authors have come at a considerable cost, and
since 1996 they have been unable to make the payments they owe to Crédit foncier de
France.4 On 28 April 1998, Crédit foncier de France sent the authors a foreclosure notice.
The house and lot were appraised at 300,000 francs (€45,735), a value that was equivalent to
that of the lot alone. On 14 August 1998, Crédit foncier de France garnished the rent
payments made to the authors by their tenant.
2.5
On 11 September 1998, Judge X ordered the sale of the authors’ home5 and obliged
them to pay damages for vexatious litigation. Two years later, on 21 September 2000, the
1
2
3
4
5
2
On 1 August 2015, the authors’ counsel informed the Committee that P.F. had died on 17 July 2015
and that M.F. intended to continue the proceedings before the Committee.
The lawyer’s mistake, according to the authors, led to their not being represented at the hearing or
having anyone to defend their interests.
On 17 November 1997, the Nîmes Tribunal de Grande Instance found the lawyer and his insurer
jointly and severally liable, ordering them to pay the authors 200,000 francs (€30,490) and
acknowledging the link between the lawyer’s malfeasance and the amount demanded by the
contractor. The lawyer and his insurer appealed to the Court of Appeal of Nîmes, which upheld the
first judgment on 18 January 2001. The authors received a cheque for 210,005.86 francs (€32,015);
however, this was not enough to cover what they owed.
Crédit foncier de France had the authors’ names entered in the register of non-repayment of loans.
The house was sold to bidders who have the same lawyer as Crédit foncier de France.
GE.21-01892