CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 9 juin 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 } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Final resolution DH (99) 339 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 25018/94 S.M. AGAINST FRANCE (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 June 1999 at the 672nd 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) 514, adopted on 29 October 1997 in the case of S.M. against France, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6 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, 20 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and 5 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 25   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 29 October 1997 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 avoid new violations of the same kind as that in this case, notably through the adoption of Law No. 93-1013 of 24 August 1993 which introduced Article 585-1 into the Code of Criminal Proceedings providing that a convicted appellant shall lodge his pleading with the registry of the Court of Cassation no later than one month from the date of the notice of appeal (see Resolution DH (97) 395 in the case of G.N. I 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 2 April 1999, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the total sum of 25   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.