CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 juillet 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 } .s55B2EA68 { margin-top:8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; line-height:150% } .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 } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s810C3978 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Final resolution DH (99) 442 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 30043/96 MAYEN AGAINST FRANCE (Adopted by the Committee Ministers on 15 July 1999 at the 677th 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 Interim Resolution DH (98) 220, adopted on 10 July 1998 in the case of Mayen against France, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention and to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights;   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 19 October 1998;   Whereas at the 654th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 25 January 1999, 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, 37 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 3 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 40 000 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 applicant;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 10 July 1998 and 25 January 1999, 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) and indicated that the Commission's report as well as the Committee of Ministers' decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 15 April 1999, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the total sum of 40 000 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.