CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 19 février 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE2E469C3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:19pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB160BC32 { margin-top:19pt; margin-bottom:16pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBAD1465A { margin-top:16pt; margin-bottom:35pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84C847F2 { margin-top:35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s810C3978 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   resolution DH   ( 9) 122 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 19 FEBRUARY 1998 IN THE CASE OF HIGGINS AND OTHERS AGAINST FRANCE (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 February 1999 at the 659th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 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 case of Higgins and others delivered on 19 February 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 20124/92) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 June 1992 under Article 25 of the Convention by Ms   Denise Higgins-Brown Petersen and twenty-two others, French nationals, and that the Commissions declared admissible the complaints regarding the fairness of certain proceedings and the lack of impartiality of the Court of Appeal of Papeete and of the Cour de cassation ;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 28 October 1996;   Whereas in its judgment of 19 February 1998 the Court: - held, by eigth votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention because of the Cour de cassation ’s failure to give reasons for its decision on the applicants’ complaint that the Court of Appeal of Papeete had not been impartial; - held, unanimously, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicants, within three months 75   000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 3.87% would be payable on this sum   from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   - 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 of the Convention;   Having invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 19 February 1998, having regard to France’s obligation under Article   53 of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State accordingly indicated that the Court's judgment had been published in the Bulletin des arrêts de la Cour de cassation of   15 May 1998 and sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 12 May 1998, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicants the sum provided for in the judgment of 19 February 1998,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.