CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 29 mai 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Final Resolution DH (2000) 52 Human Rights Application No. 23293/94 Carrara, Antonsanti and Pietrotti against France   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 May 2000 at the 709th 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) 512, adopted on 29 October 1997 in the case of Carrara, Antonsanti and Pietrotti against France, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention on account of the dismissal of an appeal by the Cour de cassation on the grounds that the applicants had submitted no pleadings, the applicants not having been informed either of any deadline to present their pleadings or of the date of the hearing, 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 applicants, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 18 May 1998; Whereas at the 688th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 3 December 1999, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph   2, of the Convention, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay each applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 20 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, namely a total sum of 60 000 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 applicants; 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 3 December 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 entry into force, on 2   September 1993, of Law no. 93-1013 of 24 August 1993 (see Resolution DH (97) 395 in the G.N. I case 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 10 and 14 January 2000, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicants the sum of 60   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.