CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 3 décembre 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .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 } .s11709F00 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sB893133D { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Final resolution DH (99) 705 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 26732/95 HANSBERGER AGAINST FRANCE   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 1999 at the 688th 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 (97) 238, adopted on 15 May 1997 in the case of Hansberger 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 due to the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts, and decided 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 25 April 1997;   Whereas at the 677th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 15 July 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, the sum of 30 000 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 May 1997 and 15 July 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 recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as the one found in this case, notably through the setting up of administrative courts of appeal, the redefinition of the competence of the Conseil d’Etat and the increase of personnel and means in order to speed up administrative proceedings (see Resolution DH (95) 254 in the case of Beaumartin against France), 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 27 August 1999, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the total sum of 30 000 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.