CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 17 juin 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } Final Resolution ResDH(2003)88 Human Rights Application No. 31603/96 Hermant against France   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 June 2003 at the 841st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former 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(2000)87, adopted on 29 May 2000 in the case of Hermant 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 excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings in particular before the Cour de cassation , 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 30 October 1999;   Whereas at the 716th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 24 July 2000, in accordance with former 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 global 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 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 May 2000 and 24 July 2000, having regard to France’s obligation under former 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 gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee’s decisions taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution);   Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the total sum of 60   000 French francs as just satisfaction on 16 November 2000, within one month of the time-limit set, and thus no default interest was due in accordance with the above-mentioned decision of the Committee of Ministers,   Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case. Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2003)88   Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the Hermant case by the Committee of Ministers   To deal with the heavy case-load in certain divisions of the Court of Cassation, changes have been made in the processing and the hearing of appeals and it has been decided to increase staffing levels.   Changes in the handling and examination of appeals   First, applications are now filtered so that some appeals which are clearly unfounded can be heard by a reduced bench of only three judges.   Article L131-6 of the Code on Organisation of the Courts, as amended by section 27 of the Institutional Act of 25 June 2001, which came into force on 1 January 2002, provides:   " After filing of memorials, cases brought before a civil division shall be examined by a bench of three judges belonging to the division to which the cases were assigned.   These judges shall disallow appeals that are inadmissible or unfounded on a serious ground of law.   Where the solution is self-evident they shall decide the case.   Otherwise, they shall send it for hearing by the division.   However, the First President or the President of the division concerned, or their representatives, may, of their own motion or at the request of Principal State Counsel or one of the parties, send the case direct for hearing by the division, without having to give grounds for that decision.   Where he or she deems that the solution of a case brought before the criminal division is self-evident, the First President or the President of that division may decide to have the case heard by a bench of three judges.   At the request of one of the parties, these judges may decide to send the case for hearing by the division; hearing by the division shall be automatic where one of the judges sitting on the reduced bench so requests . The bench shall dismiss any appeal which is inadmissible or unfounded on a serious ground of law. "   Statistical data since 1 January 2002 on the procedure for the admission of appeals   With regard to the Civil Chambers in the first half of 2002, out of a total of 9448 judgments, 2626 decisions of inadmissibility were delivered (i.e. 28%).   This percentage is made up of 31 % for the First Chamber, 39 % for the Second Chamber, 10 % for the Third Chamber, 19 % for the Commercial Chamber and 33 % for the Social Chamber.   These cases which are initially destined to be declared inadmissible at appeal are essentially those which contain no complexities and which have previously been judged by a restricted bench composed of three judges (Section L-. 131-6 of the Code of Judicial Procedure). It may be noted furthermore that 10 % of cases initially earmarked as potentially inadmissible were finally reassigned for reasoned judgment.   On the criminal side, inadmissibility concerns 35 % of the appeals introduced before the Criminal Chamber.   Prevention of disputes   Secondly, section 26 of Institutional Act 2001-539 of 25 June 2001, which also came into force on 1   January   2002, amended Articles L151-1 and L151-2 of the Code on Organisation of the Courts, extending the procedure whereby the trial and appeal courts may seek the Court of Cassation's opinion on a question of law arising in a significant number of cases, which has not yet been settled.   In particular, the Act extended this procedure to criminal cases, thereby making it possible to avoid the emergence of causes for dispute.   The relevant provisions read as follows:   Article L151-1   " Before deciding a new question of law, which raises a serious difficulty and arises in a large number of cases, the trial and appeal courts may, by a decision not open to appeal, seek the opinion of the Court of Cassation, which shall state its position within three months of the referral. …"   Article L151-2   " The bench of the Court of Cassation which deals with a request for an opinion shall be chaired by the First President or, if he or she is unable to be present, the most senior Division President . …   Apart from the First President, the bench required to give an opinion in criminal matters shall include the President of the Criminal Division, a Division President appointed by the First President, four judges of the Criminal Division and two judges of another division, appointed by the First President. …"   Thirdly, under arrangements made between the registry and the divisions of the Court of Cassation, the period between the date of the hearing and delivery of the judgment has been reduced to not more than four weeks.   Fourthly, a number of measures are currently being envisaged with the aim of rationalising the handling of cases.   For instance, there are plans to group appeals by series, to link appeals raising the same point of law, with a view to hearing them concurrently or in a co-ordinated manner, and to reduce the time allowed for preparing certain categories of cases for hearing.   Increasing the staff of the Cour de cassation   A substantial increase in the staff of the Court of Cassation has been decided, so as to deal with the current backlog of cases.   Six posts of auxiliary judge were established in 2001, and eleven supernumerary posts.     There are also plans to recruit six further supernumerary posts of auxiliary judges which will bring the total staff to 76 auxiliary judges. Pursuant to the Institutional Act of 25 June 2001, the number of specially recruited magistrates who may be appointed to the Cour de cassation has been doubled.   The Government of France considers that this body of measures will make it possible to accelerate proceedings before the Cour de cassation so that cases brought before it may be judged within a reasonable time in conformity with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and that France has accordingly fulfilled its obligations under former Article 32 of the Convention.