CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 13 février 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 13 March 1984 by Mrs Georgette Godard and Mrs Geneviève Egron against France (Application No. 10882/84);   Whereas on 15 November 1989 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas in their application the applicants complained inter alia of the excessive length of administrative proceedings to have land reallocations set aside;   Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 18 January 1989 as regards the above-mentioned complaint and in its report adopted on 12 October 1989 expressed unanimously the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;   Having examined the proposals made by the Commission concerning just satisfaction for the applicants and taking note of the fact that the applicants refused their agreement to the payment of damages,   Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention that there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention in this case;   Decides that the finding of a violation constitutes adequate just satisfaction in this case;   Decides, therefore, that no further action is called for in this case.