CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 22 décembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sFCD7D858 { margin-left:1.65pt; border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A08084E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s4CCA2433 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AB3D1C6 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sA6524EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E7C0AC9 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sAAECE211 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sC52BE8B1 { height:42.5pt } .s3ABC28C6 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s841127EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sBCFD1DA1 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } Resolution ResDH(2004)103 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in seven cases against France (see appendix to this resolution) concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 December 2004 at the 906th 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 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the seven cases, details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, delivered on 7 February 2002, 21 February 2002, 19 March 2002, 28 January 2003, 8 April 2003 and 27 May 2003 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that these cases originated in applications against France (see appendix to this resolution), lodged either with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 of the Convention or the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 of the Convention and that the Court (seized of the cases lodged with the Commission under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11) declared admissible the complaints concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings;   Whereas in its judgments concerning these cases the Court unanimously:   -   held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   -   held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgments became final, the amounts of just satisfaction set out in the appendix to this resolution and that simple interest (at a rate set out by the Court in each judgment) would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction;   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 these judgments, having regard to France's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the Committee of Ministers' examination of these cases the government of the respondent state indicated that the Court's judgments had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned, and that, in the cases of Langlois, Molles and Marks and Ordinateur Express, the Committee had asked for the proceedings, still pending at the time of the Court's judgments, to be accelerated so as to remedy as far as possible the consequences of the violations found ( restitutio in integrum );   Having satisfied itself that on the dates indicated in the appendix the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in these judgments and that the default interest due in cases where payment was made after expiry of the time-limit had also been paid (see appendix to this Resolution),   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.           Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2004)103   Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants     Applications lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (former Article 25 of the Convention)   Cases Date of judgment Non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses Payment on Langlois 39278/98 07/02/2002 – Final on 07/05/2002   7,000 euros 29/08/2002 + interest Granata 39626/98 19/03/2002 – Final on 11/06/2002   6   829,39 euros 08/09/2003 Molles 43627/98 28/01/2003 – Final on 28/04/2003   8   400 euros 06/10/2003 + interest     Applications lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (Article 34 of the Convention)   Cases Date of judgment Non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses Payment on Van Der Kar and Lissaur Van West 44952/98 44953/98 19/03/2002 – Final on 19/06/2002 18   298 euros 02/12/2002 + interest Marks & Ordinateur Express 47575/99 21/02/2002 – Final on 21/05/2002 9   800 euros 22/08/2002 (one day late - applicant has not insisted on payment of interest - minimal sum) Richart-Luna 48566/99 08/04/2003 – Final on 08/07/2003   8   000 euros 27/10/2003 + interest Kornblum 50267/99 27/05/2003 – Final on 27/08/2003   11   870 euros 14/11/2003