CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 novembre 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Piermont case delivered on 27 April 1995 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in two applications (Nos. 15773/89 and 15774/89) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 and 8 November 1989 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Ms Dorothée Piermont, a German national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that administrative measures taken against her in French Polynesia and New Caledonia had infringed Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) to the Convention on account of a failure to respect her right to liberty of movement on French territory, Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention because her freedom of expression had been hindered, and Articles 10 and 14 (art. 14+10) of the Convention taken together on account of discrimination on the grounds of national origin;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 11 March 1994;        Whereas in its judgment of 27 April 1995 the Court:        - held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) to the Convention as regards the measure taken in French Polynesia;        - held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) to the Convention as regards the measure taken in New Caledonia;        - held by five votes to four that there had been a breach of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the measure taken in French Polynesia;        - held by five votes to four that there had been a breach of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the measure taken in New Caledonia;        - held unanimously that it was unnecessary to consider the case under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 10 (art. 14+10);        - held unanimously that the respondent state was to pay 80 000 (eighty thousand) French francs in respect of costs and expenses;        - dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 27 April 1995, having regard to France's obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of France gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that on 28 August 1995, the Government of France paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 27 April 1995,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 255           Information provided by the Government of France          during the examination of the case of Piermont                   by the Committee of Ministers        The judgment of the Court has been published in the Bulletin d'information de la Cour de cassation.   In addition, it has been distributed to the local authorities in New Caledonia and French Polynesia.        The French Government is of the opinion that these measures will contribute efficiently to ensuring that the interpretation of Article 7 of the act of 1849 and of the High Commissioner's general police powers will henceforth take into account the considerations emphasised by the Court in its judgment.