CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2001)123 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 November 2000 (final on 28 February 2001) in the case of Siegel against France   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 October 2001 at the 764th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Siegel case delivered on 28 November 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 36350/97) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 April 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Auguste Siegel, a French national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings; Whereas in its judgment of 28 November 2000 the Court unanimously: - dismissed the preliminary objections of the Government; - held that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention was applicable in this case; - held that there had been a violation of this Article; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, 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 28 November 2000, having regard to France’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, 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 indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned; Whereas no amount of money should be paid to the applicant in respect of just satisfaction since the later had submitted no claim in this respect, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.