CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .s55F2A7FA { margin-top:8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sD622F424 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3A0EFA1 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sCCB68666 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s417B2516 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   resolution DH   (99) 545 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 24685/94 L. M. AGAINST FRANCE (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 October 1999 at the 680th 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 1996 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 12   July 1994 by a French national, Ms   L. M. , 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 her application, declared admissible by the Commission on 6 September 1995, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative court of Versailles;   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 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;   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 23 September 1997;   Whereas at the 633rd meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 11 June 1998, in   accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 80 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage 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 applicant;   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 11 June 1998, 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 informed the Committee that measures preventing the repetition of the violation found had been taken as from 1995 (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution) and indicated that the Commission’s report had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned; Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 24 July 1998, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicant the total sum of 80 000 French francs as just satisfaction,   Declares, after having taken note of the information given 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 (99) 545   Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the L. M. case by the Committee of Ministers   Under the Expenditure Authorisation Act of 6 January 1995, six posts for registry staff and six posts for judges were created at the Versailles Administrative Court. In the last three years, in spite of the increase in the number of cases registered (6   495 in 1996, 7   672 in 1998, namely more than 18%), the number of cases pending has fallen (20   046 in 1996, 17   120 in 1998, namely more than 14.6%) as a result of the very sharp rise in the number of cases coming to judgment (5   980 in 1996, 8   544 in 1998, namely more than 49%). This very considerable increase in throughput is due to the   increase in staff and to the increase in the average productivity of judges. This trend in the functioning of the Versailles Administrative Court should be confirmed in the next few years. The Court should in fact be able to absorb the backlog progressively, thanks to the establishment, on 1 September 2000, of the Administrative Court of Cergy Pontoise, which will take over some of the applications currently within the juridiction of the Versailles court in two Départements (Essonne and Yvelines). The Government of France considers that these measures will prevent the repetition of further violation of the kind found in this case, and that it has accordingly fulfilled its obligations under Article 32 of the Convention.