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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .sFBD4F1DE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:8.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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)141 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Nouhaud and others against France   (Application No.   33424/96, judgment of 9   July 2002, final on 9   October 2002)     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 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 the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy (violations of Article   6, paragraph   1, and Article   13) (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, the respondent state paid the applicants 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 Nouhaud and Others case at the 928th   meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (6   June 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)141   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Nouhaud and others against France     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the excessive length of civil compensation proceedings in which a regional court deferred judgment pending the decision of an administrative court: the proceedings lasted a total of almost 10   years, including three years and nine months before the Conseil d’Etat (violation of Article   6, paragraph   1).   The applicants also complained that there was no effective remedy in French law for the excessive length of proceedings (violation of Article   13).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and Application No Pecuniary damage Frais & dépens Total Nouhaud René – n o 33424/96 7500 EUR - 7   500 EUR Paid on 02/07/2003, interest paid on 12/01/2004 Nouhaud Gabrielle – n o 33424/96 4500 EUR 1000 EUR 5   500 EUR Paid before 02/07/2003, interest paid on 12/01/2004   b) Individual measures   The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings. No circumstances justify any other individual measures in this case.     II.   General measures   The Court noted that, after 20   September 1999 (and hence after the present case), actions for compensation based on Article L   781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had become sufficiently certain in law to remedy alleged violations of the right to have a case heard within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article   6, paragraph   1.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measures are necessary in this case, 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