CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 11 juillet 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s5D2B3044 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.5pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s9A60F34 { margin-top:5.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sF7F44470 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.5pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s48BAB976 { margin-top:5.5pt; margin-bottom:5.5pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sAA061300 { margin-top:5.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } RESOLUTION DH (97) 342 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 20536/92 FOUQUET RAYMOND AGAINST FRANCE   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 July 1997 at the 597th 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 29 June 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 15 June 1992 by Mr Raymond Fouquet against France (Application No.   20536/92);   Whereas on 30 August 1994 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 his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 1   December 1993, the applicant complained of the absence of public hearings in certain proceedings before the disciplinary National Chamber of members of the board of auditors ( commissaires aux comptes );   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by eleven votes to one, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   Whereas at the 524th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 11 January 1995, 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 7 July 1995;   Whereas at the 542nd meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held, by a decision adopted on 7   September 1995, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of France was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 7 500 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 16 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 23 500 French francs;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 11 January and 7   September   1995, 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 its decision of 11   January 1995, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that not later than 29 April 1996 the Government of France paid the applicant the total sum of 23 500 French francs as just satisfaction,   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 (97) 342   Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the case of Fouquet Raymond by the Committee of Ministers       By its judgment of 14 February 1996 in the case of Maubleu, the Conseil d’Etat accepted the applicability of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention to ordinal disciplinary jurisdictions. Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers’s decisions and the report of the Commission have been transmitted to the authorities concerned. Moreover, the judgment of the Court of 26   September 1995 in a similar case, the case of Diennet, has been published in the Gazette du palais (No. 5, Sept-Oct 1996, pp.   529-532).   The Government of France is of the opinion that, having regard to the status of the Convention and the case-law of the Strasbourg bodies in domestic law, the ordinal disciplinary jurisdictions will not fail to apply the rules relating to public hearings in accordance with this case-law.