CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 juillet 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s4AB489F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:20pt } .sD8D566C3 { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .s4ECD4776 { margin-top:104.85pt; margin-left:180.8pt; position:absolute } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s5D2B3044 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.5pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s9A60F34 { margin-top:5.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sF7F44470 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.5pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s97DB3B14 { margin-top:5.5pt; margin-bottom:5.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s8017C9A { margin-top:5.4pt; margin-bottom:5.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s1E516E62 { margin-top:5.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   RESOLUTION DH (97) 352 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 26 SEPTEMBER 1995 IN THE CASE OF DIENNET AGAINST FRANCE   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 July 1997 at the 597th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Conven ­ tion 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 Diennet case delivered on 26 September 1995 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 18160/91) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 April 1991 under Article   25 of the Convention by Mr Marcel Diennet, a French national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint regarding the failure to hold public hearings in the disciplinary proceedings before the Regional Council and the disciplinary section of the Medical Association’s National Council, and the complaint that the Medical Association’s National Council, which dealt with the case after it had been referred back would have lacked impartiality;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 7   July 1994;   Whereas in its judgment of 26 September 1995 the Court:   – held, unanimously, that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention applied in the present case;   – held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in that the applicant did not receive a public hearing;   – held, by eight votes to one, that there had been no breach of the same article in respect of the applicant’s other complaint;   – held, unanimously, that this judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the alleged damage;   – held, unanimously, that the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 20   000 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 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 26 September 1995, 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 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 31 May 1996 the Government of France paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 26 September 1995,   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.       Appendix to Resolution DH (97) 352   Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the case of Diennet by the Committee of Ministers       Articles 13, 15 and 26 of Decree No. 48-1671 of 26 October 1948, from which the violation found in this case originates, were amended in 1993 by Decree No. 93-181 of 5   February 1993: henceforth hearings before a body of the Medical Association sitting to determine disciplinary charges are held in public; the chairman of the body in question may, however, of his own motion or on an application by one of the parties or by the person whose complaint has led to the case being brought before a regional council, exclude the public from all or part of the hearing in the interests of public order or where respect for private life or medical confidentiality so justifies.   Furthermore, Articles 13 and 28 as amended, now provide that decisions are made public, but that the bodies in question may decide not to include in the certified copies any details, such as surnames, which might be incompatible with respect for private life or medical confidentiality.   The Government of France also recalls that by its judgment of 14 February 1996 in the case of Maubleu, the Conseil d’Etat accepted the applicability of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention to ordinal disciplinary jurisdictions, and that the judgment of the Court has been published in the Gazette du palais (No.   5, September-October   1996, pp.   529-532) as well as transmitted to the authorities concerned.   The Government of France is of the opinion that, having regard to the status of the Convention and the case-law of the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law, the ordinal disciplinary jurisdictions will not fail to apply the rules relating to public hearings in accordance with this case-law.