CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 25 septembre 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s51B216E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB4E8EDDF { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s914535E8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s35B6A16A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:10pt } .s1E568C4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF2A55B18 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7FB6B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .s2EF16B1D { width:35.4pt; display:inline-block } .s26FADE44 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:35.4pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Final resolution DH   (98) 290 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 26222/95 MUGLER-BENTOUMI AGAINST FRANCE (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 September 1998 at the 640th 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) 522, adopted on 29 October 1997 in the case of Mugler-Bentoumi 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 reports as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 7 November 1997;   Whereas, at the 618th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission's proposals, held by a decision adopted on 18 February 1998, 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 in respect of costs and expenses 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 18 February 1998, 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 competence of the Conseil d’Etat and the increase with important means in the form of personnel and material in order to accelerate 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 25 March 1998, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent State paid the applicant the total sum of 30 000 French francs as just satisfaction, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case.