Government of the State party dated 11 March 1964 stating that in adopting the decree of 9 May 1963, “the Government was motivated by the desire to prevent further submission of cases to the courts”, and points out that the departmental commissions therefore limited themselves to hearing the case and issuing an opinion, leaving the final decision to the national commission chaired by the Minister of the Interior. However, this commission was never set up. He also considers that, while avenues of redress do exist (administrative tribunals in the case of farms, for example), their chance of being successful on the merits is negligible. Constantine, but decisions have not yet been rendered. 3.4 Thus, according to Consultation, all possible proceedings were instituted. Either the Algerian courts declared themselves not competent (lack of remedy owing to refusal to render judgement); or they referred the case to the administrative commission provided for by the decree of 9 May 1963, which was never set up (again, lack of remedy owing to refusal to render judgement); or they granted the appeal, but the decision was not enforced (lack of remedy owing to failure to execute). As for appeals to the Supreme Court, Consultation concludes that, while possible, in practice applications for judicial review of administrative decisions stand little chance of success. 26 Counsel submits that, since no French citizen exiled from Algeria has obtained satisfaction for the dispossession suffered, the burden of proof is on the State party. 27 The author has demonstrated that domestic remedies have no prospects of success.28 3.3 Consultation indicates that the following remedies were available to the injured owners in theory. First, they could file in the Supreme Court:24 (1) annulment proceedings in respect of the decrees introducing the vacant property regime, the decree of 9 May 1963 and that of 1 October 1963; (2) an appeal against the decisions of the national commission ruling on appeals against measures enforcing the decree of 9 May 1963; (3) an appeal against prefectural decisions taken in application of the decree of 1 October 1963; (4) an appeal against decisions declaring property vacant; (5) an application for judicial review of appeals court judgements rendered under the procedure established by article 7 of the decree of 18 March 1963; or (6) an application for judicial review when the seizure of property is the result of an administrative act. Second, it was possible to appeal to an interim relief judge against possible future decisions declaring property vacant. Lastly, an administrative appeal could be filed with the commissions established by the decree of 9 May 1963 against decisions placing property under State protection or declaring property vacant. Three proceedings were instituted before the president of the Court of Major Jurisdiction of Algiers by virtue of the decree of 18 March 196325 and were successful in that the Court either declared the decisions null and void or ordered surveys that found the property not to be vacant. Encouraged by these three orders, many other proceedings were instituted, but the favourable judgements could not be implemented. The appeals filed by virtue of the decree of 9 May 1963 never led to a result, because the commissions were never set up. Two decisions were rendered in May 1964 setting aside the order of the president of the Court of Algiers and affirming that the interim relief judge remained competent to hear disputes under the 18 March 1963 decree. Two appeals were also filed with the Court of 3.5 In view of the impossibility of obtaining justice in the State party, a number of French citizens exiled from Algeria turned to France. The Council of State rejected 74 appeals on 25 November 1988, 17 February 1999 and 7 April 1999 (cases Teytaud and others). 29 They subsequently turned to the European Court of Human Rights, 30 which found that “the applicants were dispossessed of their property by the Algerian State, which is not a party to the Convention”. 3.6 With regard to the admissibility of the communication, the author argues that it was submitted by an individual who, when violation of the Covenant first occurred, was subject to the State 26 It mentions a range of legal arguments that could have been used. He cites communication No. 4/1977, William Torres Ramirez v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 23 July 1980, para. 9. 28 He cites communication No. 84/1981, Hugo Gilmet Dermit v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 9.4; and communications Nos. 221/1987 and 323/1988, Cadoret and Le Bihan v. France, Views adopted on 11 April 1991, para. 5.1. 29 With regard to an appeal filed against the decisions rendered on 11 July 1996 by the Administrative Appeal Court of Paris, the Council of State ruled on 17 February 1999 that the French State was not responsible, since the Evian agreements “included no clauses or promises guaranteeing French citizens residing in Algeria that in case they were deprived of their property by the Algerian State, the French Government would compensate them for their loss”. 30 See applications Nos. 48754/99 and 49721/99; Nos. 49720/99 and 49723/99; Nos. 49724-25/99 and 49729/99; 49726/99 and 49728/99; 49727/99 and 49730/99, Teytaud and others v. France, inadmissibility decision of 25 January 2001; and applications Nos. 52240/99 to 52296/99, Amsellem and others v. France, inadmissibility decision of 10 July 2001. 27 24 Established by Act No. 63-218 of 18 June 1963. However, the decrees nationalizing agricultural property, tobacco plantations, flour mills, semolina factories, transport firms, cinemas, etc., did not provide for any amicable settlement procedure or litigation. Only administrative appeals were possible. 25 38