CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 septembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s1628B0A7 { height:13.75pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s831CE78A { height:14.5pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)94 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Palau-Martinez against France   (Application No. 64927/01, judgment of 16 December 2003, final on 16 March 2004)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns discriminatory interference in the applicant’s right to family life (violation of Articles 8 and 14) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken in the Palau-Martinez case at the 940th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (11 October 2005), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)94   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Palau-Martinez against France   Introductory case summary   This case concerns discriminatory interference in the applicant’s right to family life in that, in the context of divorce proceedings, in 1998, when the Court of Appeal decided to modify the place of residence of her children, who had been living with her for over three years, due to her membership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The European Court considered that the Court of Appeal had ruled in abstracto and on the basis of general considerations without establishing a link between the children’s living conditions with their mother and their real interest. In particular it had rejected the applicant’s request for a social inquiry, which is common practice when it comes to child custody cases and would no doubt have provided tangible assessment information of the situation (violation of Article 8 together with Article 14 of the Convention).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 10 000 EUR 4 125 EUR 14 125 EUR Paid under conditions accepted by the applicant   b) Individual measures   By a letter of 17/06/2004 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Secretariat that the children were still living with their father, but the applicant did not wish to take any action in order to change this situation. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   The government confirmed that this judgment had been circulated to all departments and courts that might have to deal with similar cases. The judgment has also been posted on the Intranet site of the Ministry of Justice and can therefore be consulted by all members of the judiciary.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that it has executed the judgment in that it has taken individual measures to redress as far as possible the prejudice sustained by the applicant and in that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has accordingly fulfilled its obligations pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies