CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 avril 2005

.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 } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s70EF54D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; font-size:12pt } .sAD36A042 { width:32.55pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD9E26BC4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; font-size:12pt } .s306BC2EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:13.65pt; font-size:12pt } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } Resolution ResDH(2005)26 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 29 April 1999 (Grand Chamber) in the case of Chassagnou and others against France   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 April 2005 at the 922nd 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 final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chassagnou and others delivered on 29 April 2004 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in three applications (Nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 April 1994, 29 April 1995 and 30 June 1995 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mrs Marie-Jeanne Chassagnou, Mr René Petit and Mrs Simone Lasgrezas on 20 April 1994, Mr Léon Dumont, Mr Pierre Galland, Mr André Galland, Mr Edouard Petit, Mr Michel Petit and Mr Michel Pinon on 29 April 1995, and by Mrs Joséphine Montion on 30 June 1995, all French nationals;   Recalling that the Commission declared admissible the applicants' complaints concerning a breach of their right to freedom of conscience and association as well as to their right to respect for their property due to the obligation imposed on them as landowners to join approved hunting associations (ACCA) and to authorise hunting on their land;   Recalling that the first case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 15 December 1997 and the other two on 16 March 1998;   Whereas in its judgment of 29 April 1999 the Court:   -   held, by twelve votes to five, that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately;   - held, by fourteen votes to three, that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention;   - held, by twelve votes to five, that there had been a breach of Article 11 of the Convention taken separately;   - held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a breach of Article 11 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14;   - held, by sixteen votes to one, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 9 of the Convention separately;   -   held unanimously that the respondent state was to pay each of the nine applicants, within three months, 30   000 French francs for non-pecuniary damage, on which sum simple interest at an annual rate of 3.47% would be payable 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   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 29 April 1999, 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 gave the Committee information about the individual and general measures taken in particular the amendment of Law No. 64-696 of 10 July 1964 (the so-called “Verdeille Act”) which was criticised by the European Court in its judgment, so as to admit conscienscious objection to hunting and thus avoid further violations similar to those found by the European Court against persons opposed to hunting (see the appendix to this resolution);   Having satisfied itself that on 10 December 1999, after the expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided in the judgment of 29 April 1999, together with the default interest due, amounting to 994,59 French francs for each of the applicants;   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 this case.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)26   Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the case of Chassagnou and others by the Committee of Ministers   With regard to general measures , the government notes at he outset that the issues raised by the European Court of Human Rights in the Chassagnou judgment were promptly brought to the attention of the authorities concerned. The judgment itself has already been published in: -                       the CJP – La semaine juridique No. 19-20 of May 1999 (extracts); -                       the AJDA ( Actualité juridique du droit administratif ) No. 11/1999; -                       the Revue juridique de l'environnement No. 3/1999; -                       the Revue française du droit administratif.   To give full effect to the Court's judgment, Act No. 64-696 of 10 July 1964 (“the Verdeille Act”), impugned by the Court, has been amended, giving those opposed to hunting the right to object to it on grounds of conscience. Act No. 2000-698 on hunting, which introduces this amendment, was adopted on 26 July 2000 and published in the official gazette on 27 July 2000. Under Section 14 of that Act (the present Article L422-10 of the Environment Code):   “The municipal association [the licensed municipal hunting association – ACCA] shall be established on lands other than those: (............) 5. Covered by objections lodged by individual owners, or unanimously by several co-owners acting jointly, who are opposed to hunting for reasons of personal conviction, and who forbid hunting, also by themselves, on their lands, without prejudice to the effects of owner liability, and particularly liability for damage caused by game from their lands. When the owner is a corporation, the objection may be lodged by the chief executive of its decision-making body, duly authorised by it to do so.”     The government also notes that implementation of the provisions relating to the ACCA, as amended by the said Act of 26 July 2002, appears to have raised certain problems in respect of possibilities of withdrawing from the ACCA open to persons not wishing to plead objections of conscience. These problems have given rise to a number of proceedings which are still pending before the appeal courts, but in which the administrative courts based their first-instance judgments on principles derived from the Strasbourg case-law, and particularly the Chassagnou judgment.   At all events, the government considers, in view of the direct effect in French law of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court, that there is no longer any risk of further violations of the kind suffered by the anti-hunting applicants according to the Chassagnou judgment.   Concerning the applicants' individual situation , the government notes that the entry into force of the new Act allows them to avail themselves of the right of conscientious objection which it introduces.   The French government believes that these measures have together given the applicants full satisfaction, and will make it possible to avoid violations similar to those found in the present case, and that France has therefore satisfied its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention.