1 This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.

2 The case is numbered 55/1997/839/1045. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

3 Rules of Court A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol. They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

4 Note by the Registrar .For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

5 “Undoubtedly, the uĢliest side of Vichy's abortive moral revolution was its vicious racism, and in particular its own special brand of anti-Semitism. Recent research has established beyond question that, far from being a Nazi imposition, Vichy's anti-Semitism was entirely home-Ģrown and in certain respects even exceeded German requirements” ( Twentieth Century France: Politics and Society 1898-1991 by James F. McMillan, pp. 138-139. See also Vichy France and the Jews by Michael R. Marrus and Robert O. Paxton, particularly pp. 365-372).

6 “In assessinĢ this question, the Court recalls that the domestic marĢin of appreciation is not identical as reĢards each of the aims listed in Article 10 § 2” (see the Worm v. Austria judĢment of 29 AuĢust 1997, § 49). Robert J. Kestrell was named as a defendant in appellant's complaint in the district court, but he did not appear at any stage in the district court action or before us.