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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s12D5263B { height:24.2pt } .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 } .s2D2AB0A7 { height:12.45pt } .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 } .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 } .s9C069BF5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:271.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sD89EB0A7 { height:11.75pt } .sF4B5263B { height:25.7pt } .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)143 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Vaturi and Zentar against France   (Vaturi, Application No 75699/01, judgment of 13 April 2006, final on 13 July 2006) (Zentar, Application No 17902/02, judgment of 13 avril 2006, final on 13 juillet 2006     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 violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern a breach of the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings against the applicants (violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3d) (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 Vaturi and Zentar case at the 1065th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (15 September 2009), 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)143   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Vaturi and Zentar against France     Introductory case summary   These cases concern a breach of the right to a fair trial, in breach of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3(d) of the Convention, in criminal proceedings against the applicants, convicted (in 2000 and 2001 respectively) without having been able to examine witnesses, or have them examined, at any stage of the proceedings.   In the Vaturi case the Court held that, even if the statements made by the witnesses in question were not the sole basis for the applicant’s conviction, the hearings requested by the latter could have contributed in the circumstances of the case to the balance and equality which should prevail between the prosecution and the defence throughout the proceedings   In the Zentar case the Court held that the witness statements had played a decisive role in the trial judges’ assessment and that even if the finding of guilt against the applicant not been based to a decisive extent on those statements, it was an inescapable fact that the domestic authorities had taken no steps to locate the two prosecution witnesses concerned.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and no. of application Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Vaturi – 75699/01   3   000 EUR   3   000 EUR Paid on 13/11/2006, interest paid on 21/10/2008 Zentar – 17902/021   3   000 EUR 1   653,35 EUR 4   653,35 EUR Paid on 7/11/2006, interest paid on 1/06/2007   b) Individual measures   The Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicants had the possibility to apply for reconsideration of the final criminal decisions on the basis of Articles L 626-1 ff of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.           II.   General measures   These cases should be compared with the Rachdad case (No. 71846/01) and the Mayali case (judgment of 14/06/2005, Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)46). It will be recalled that the Rachdad judgment was published and circulated to all courts which might have occasion to hear similar cases and that this measure was considered satisfactory, in view of the direct effect given by the French courts to the Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and bearing in mind that this type of violation does not result from the relevant legislative provisions but from their implementation by the courts.   The Mayali judgment was also circulated to the competent courts.   In view of the specific characteristics of these cases, the Zentar judgment was transmitted on 24/04/2006 to the Principal State Prosecutor at the Cour de Cassation , the Principal State Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence and the Directorate General of Criminal Cases and Pardons (Ministry of Justice). The Zentar and Vaturi judgments have also been posted by the Observatory of European Law since July 2007 on the website of the Cour de Cassation . These specific measures are in addition to the usual measures taken to publish judgments and circulate them among the competent authorities.     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