CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 13 septembre 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sD9E934D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } RESOLUTION DH (96) 563 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 23133/93   ROCHE AGAINST FRANCE   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 September 1996 at the 571st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   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 on 17 May 1995, by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 3 December 1993 by Ms Anne Roche against France (Application No.   23133/93);   Whereas on 27 June 1995 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, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in her application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 22   February 1995 (final decision as to the admissibility), the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before civil and labour courts;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention;   Whereas, at the 549th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 20 November 1995, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 24 May 1996;   Whereas, at the 571st meeting of the Deputies held on 4 September 1996, the Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that no sum of money was to be paid to the applicant as just satisfaction, since the latter had not submitted any claim in this respect;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 20 November 1995 and 4   September 1996, having regard to France's obligation under Article   32, paragraph   4, of the Convention to abide by them;   Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of France gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution,   Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case;   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.       Appendix to Resolution DH (96) 563   Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the case of Roche by the Committee of Ministers       The report of the Commission has been distributed to the competent courts, according to a practice established by the Government of France in similar cases. The government is of the opinion that this practice will prevent any repetition of violations similar to that found in the present case.