CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 juillet 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9BD1BAAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:22pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDCF20F75 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:16pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDF40DEA0 { margin-top:16pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5BB93D78 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s810C3978 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     resolution DH   (99) 468 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 29 JULY 1998 IN THE CASE OF LE CALVEZ AGAINST FRANCE (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 July 1999 at the 677th 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 Le Calvez case delivered on 29 July 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 25554/94) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 July 1994 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr   Jean-Marie Le Calvez, a French national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint regarding the excessive length of the proceedings for payment of sickness benefit and compensation for loss of salary brought against the State by the applicant, a civil servant in the New Caledonian agricultural service who was on leave of absence;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Government of France on 11 July 1997;   Whereas in its judgment of 29 July 1998 the Court: -   held, by eight votes to one, that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention applied to the case and that there had been a violation of it; - held, unanimously, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months 15   000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 10   000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 3.36% would be payable on those sums 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 29 July 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 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 of personnel and means in order to speed up administrative proceedings (see Resolution DH (95) 254 in the case of Beaumartin), and indicated that the extracts of Court's judgment had been published in la Semaine Juridique, dated 20   January 1999 and sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 30 October 1998 the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 29 July 1998, and that the default interest due was paid on 12 April 1999,   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.