CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 septembre 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sB51AFEB2 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s262C0CB4 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s46AF7699 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:10pt }   RESOLUTION DH (98) 306 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 31 MARCH 1998 IN THE CASE OF REINHARDT AND SLIMANE-KAÏD AGAINST FRANCE (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 September 1998, at the 640th 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 Reinhardt and Slimane-Kaïd case delivered on 31 March 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers; Recalling that the case originated in two applications (Nos. 23043/93 and 22921/93) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 and 11 September 1993 respectively under Article   25 of the Convention by Mr Mohamed Slimane-Kaïd and Ms Françoise   Reinhardt, both French nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints concerning the length and the fairness of certain criminal proceedings before the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation; Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission and the French Government on 27 January 1997 and 14 March 1997 respectively; Whereas in its judgment of 31 March 1998 the Court: - held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in that the applicants’ case was not heard within a reasonable time; - held, by nineteen votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in that the applicants had not had a fair hearing before the Court of Cassation; - held, by twenty votes to one, that the present judgment constituted by itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage; - 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 31 March 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 d’information de la Cour de cassation and sent out to the authorities directly concerned, 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.