CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 18 janvier 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9BD1BAAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:22pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFCACDBC6 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40283553 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center } .sEDE76211 { margin-top:8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .sD622F424 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5BB93D78 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s810C3978 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break }     resolution DH (99) 5 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 22331/93 LESTIENNE G. AND R.   AGAINST FRANCE (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 January 1999 at the 654th 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 28 February 1998 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 19   July 1993 by   French nationals, Mr Gérard Lestienne and   Ms Rolande Lestienne, against France; Whereas on 3 April 1996 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 their application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 6 September 1995, the applicants complained of the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts and of the unfairness of a trial before the Conseil d’Etat ;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention, as regards the length of the proceedings and that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention, as regards the fairness of the trial;   Whereas at the 576th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 15 November 1996, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the length of the proceedings and that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention, as regards the fairness of the trial;   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 applicants, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 18 July 1997;   Whereas at the 605th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission's proposals, held by a decision adopted on 29 October 1997, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent State was to pay jointly to the applicants as just satisfaction, within three months, 40 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and 10   000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 50 000 French francs and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicants;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 15 November 1996 and 29 October 1997, 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 the respondent State accordingly recalled that measures had already been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation found in this case, notably through the setting up of administrative courts of appeal, the redefinition of the competences of the Conseil d’Etat and the increase of personnel and means in order to speed up the administrative proceedings (see Resolution DH (95) 254 in the case of Beaumartin); the government of the respondent State also recalled that only lawyers are required to be summonsed to hearings before the Conseil d’Etat and that parties not represented by counsel but wishing to be present at hearing must request authorisation to do so; and that the administrative procedure is governed by the adversarial principle (Articles R138 and R140 of the Administrative courts and Administrative Court of Appeal Code); lastly, the government of the respondent State indicated that the Commission's report had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 27 January 1998, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent State paid the applicants the total sum of 50 000 French francs as just satisfaction,   Declares, after 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.