CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 18 juillet 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4AEBB0A7 { height:18.75pt } .s4E34B50A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s46049353 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .sD99782C2 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .s64645784 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s4B46122D { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s553C38BC { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s4A6B4500 { height:30.1pt } .s424B8FD3 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sBBB554FD { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s7F15877A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .sC3BC7037 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s5AC8206E { padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s2B2695D6 { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s3D844DE2 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s28412B5 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s4CDBBA1E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .sCD8BDE51 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s4AC8B0A7 { height:18.45pt } .sB7FB9D9B { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s70B41AB9 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s790D6B17 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s256014D3 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s309031D4 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s42E65D7A { height:27.75pt } .s46938418 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s7C18482A { padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } Resolution ResDH(2005)63 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 58 cases against France (see Appendix to this Resolution) of excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before the administrative courts   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 July 2005 at the 933rd 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 58 cases, details of which appear in the Appendix to this Resolution, delivered between 4 June 1999 and 5 October 2004 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the cases originated in applications against France (see Appendix), lodged either with the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 of the Convention, or with the European Court under Article 34 of the Convention, and that the Court (seised of the cases lodged before the Commission under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11) declared admissible the complaints relating to the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts;   Recalling that in the cases of SAPL and Théry, the Court also declared admissible the applicants' complaints regarding the violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings, but found that it was not necessary to examine these complaints in the light of its findings regarding the length of proceedings;   Whereas in its judgments Court:   -   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 become final, certain sums (see Appendix) and that simple interest at an annual rate (set 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 the judgments, having regard to France's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by them;   Whereas during the examination of the cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state indicated that the judgments of the European Court had been transmitted to the authorities concerned and in order to remedy, as far as possible, the consequences of the violations for the applicants ( restitutio in integrum) , the Committee asked for the proceedings, still pending at the time of the Court's judgments to be accelerated,   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the general measures taken to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;   Having satisfied itself that on the dates mentioned in the Appendix, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgments as well as default interest in cases paid after expiry of the time limit set (see Appendix),   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)63 Concerning fifty eight cases against France relating to the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before the administrative courts   1. Details of just satisfaction awarded to the applicants     CASES CONCERNING THE EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS   Cases brought before the European Commission of Human Rights (former Article 25 of the Convention)   Case Judgment of Final on Non-pecuniary damages and/or costs Payment on SAPL            37565/97 18/12/2001 18/03/2002 10 500 euros 23/05/2002 DESMOTS André          41358/98 02/07/2002 06/11/2002 6 000 euros 23/05/2003 + interest SCOTTI Jean ‑ Claude          43719/98 07/01/2003 21/05/2003 500 euros 12/08/2003 KROLICZEK Mieczyslaw            43969/98 02/07/2002 21/05/2003 7 800 euros 07/07/2003 RICHEUX Alain           45256/99 12/06/2003 12/09/2003 2 800 euros 27/11/2003 CLINIQUE MOZART SARL 46098/99 08/06/2004 08/09/2004 9   000 euros 03/12/2004 ZUILI Hector et Dominique              46820/99 22/07/2003 22/10/2003 9 543,46 euros 19/11/2003   Applications brought before the European Court of Human Rights (Article 34 of the Convention)   Case Judgment of Final on Non-pecuniary damages and/or costs Payment on FAIVRE Jacques         46215/99 17/12/2002 21/05/2003 12 000 euros 01/07/2003 VERRERIE DE BIOT S.A.        46659/99 27/05/2003 27/08/2003 11 700 euros 01/10/2003 TRAORE Assa        48954/99 17/12/2002 17/03/2003 11 943,50 euros 23/05/2003 BUTEL Patrice       49544/99 12/11/2002 12/02/2003 10 100 euros 11/04/2003 HEIDECKER-CARPENTIER Christine     50368/99 17/12/2002 17/03/2003 15 525 euros 23/05/2003 RAITIERE Paul        51066/99 04/02/2003 04/05/2003 5 000 euros 27/06/2003 SOLANA Henri        51179/99 19/03/2002 04/09/2002 3   048,98 euros 22/04/2003 + interest VIEZIEZ Jacques         52116/99 15/10/2002 21/05/2003 6 180 euros 23/04/2003 RACINET Guy 53544/99 23/09/2003 24/03/2004 8 275,46 euros 03/12/2004 + interest MOUFFLET Claude         53988/00 03/02/2004 14/06/2004 7 500 euros 22/11/2004 + interest BUFFERNE Béatrice        54367/00 11/02/2003 09/07/2003 2 000 euros 06/10/2003 MAIGNANT Hélène 54618/00 21/09/2004 21/12/2004 10   000 euros 04/03/2005 APPIETTO Michel        56927/00 25/02/2003 09/07/2003 6 200 euros 23/09/2003 RAITIERE Michel            57734/00 17/06/2003 24/09/2003 6 000 euros 12/01/2004 + interest BENHAIM Max       58600/00 04/02/2003 04/05/2003 7 000 euros 03/07/2003 PLOT Serge        59153/00 17/06/2003 17/09/2003 6 100 euros 01/10/2003 PERHIRIN Jean       60545/00 04/02/2003 21/05/2003 3 500 euros 06/10/2003 + interest SELLIER Françoise        60992/00 23/09/2003 23/12/2003 6 750 euros 09/04/2004 + interest JARLAN Christophe        62274/00 15/04/2003 15/07/2003 5 100 euros 12/08/2003 MUSTAFA Raoul        63056/00 17/06/2003 17/09/2003 6 000 euros 01/10/2003 MIRAILLES Robert        63156/00 09/03/2004 09/06/2004 5 991 euros 09/08/2004 POILLY Jean-Claude       68155/01 29/07/2003 29/10/2003 5 000 euros 12/11/2003 CARRIES Roger       74628/01 20/07/2004 20/10/2004 6 000 euros 22/11/2004 CAILLE Alain 3455/02 05/10/2004 05/01/2005 4   773 euros 02/03/2005 REISSE Roland 24051/02 05/10/2004 05/01/2005 3   000 euros 02/03/2005 ONNIKIAN Kervork 15816/02 05/10/2004 05/01/2005 4   000 euros 22/04/2005 + interest MITRE Jacques 44010/02 05/10/2004 05/01/2005 5   000 euros 02/03/2005     CASES CONCERNING THE EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND IN PARTICULAR THE CONSEIL D'ETAT   Cases brought before the European Commission of Human Rights (former Article 25 of the Convention)     Case Judgment of Final on Non-pecuniary damages and costs Payment on CAILLOT Simone        36932/97 04/06/1999 04/09/1999 25   000 French francs 01/03/2000 + interest BALLESTRA Albin       28660/95 12/12/2000 12/03/2001 100 300 French francs 01/03/2001 FRYDLENDER Nicolas       30979/96 27/06/2000 27/06/2000 110   000 French francs 28/08/2000 BLAISOT Charles et Marie       33207/96 25/01/2000 25/04/2000 50 000 French francs 06/06/2000 THERY Hubert        33989/96 01/02/2000 01/05/2000 40 000 French francs 03/08/2000 LAMBOURDIERE Rodolphe      37387/97 02/08/2000 02/11/2000 50 000 French francs 28/11/2000 ZANATTA Aldo et Jean-Baptiste       38042/97 28/03/2000 28/06/2000 40 000 French francs 19/06/2000 ARVOIS Armel        38249/97 23/11/1999 23/02/2000 35 000 French francs 02/06/2000 + interest OUENDENO Alexis       39996/98 16/04/2002 10/07/2002 6 500 euros 11/10/2002 (applicant waived interest in view of small amount) GARCIA Joseph ‑ Gilbert        41001/98 26/09/2000 26/12/2000 52 200 French francs 21/05/2001 + interest DURAND Louis (n o 1)             41449/98 13/11/2001 13/02/2002 40 000 French francs 03/04/2002 + interest DURAND Louis (n o 2)        42038/98 13/11/2001 13/02/2002 40 000 French francs 12/07/2002 H.L.              42189/98 07/02/2002 07/05/2002 12 200 euros 07/07/2002 JULIEN Lucien         42276/98 14/11/2002 21/05/2003 -   - CAMPS Gabriel        42401/98 24/10/2000 04/04/2001 30 000 French francs 17/12/2001 + interest GRASS Serge        44066/98 09/11/2000 09/02/2001 40 000 French francs 18/04/2001 LERAY Stéphane et autres        44617/98 20/12/2001 20/03/2002 640 000 French francs 21/06/2002 (applicant waived interest in view of small amount) GENTILHOMME Sylvette, SCHAF-BENHADJI Jeanine et ZEROUKI France        48205/99 48207/99 48209/99 14/05/2002 14/08/2002 25   829.40 euros 11/10/2002     Applications brought before the European Court of Human Rights (Article 34 of the Convention)   Case Judgment of Final on Non-pecuniary damages and costs Payment on BAILLARD Michel          51575/99 26/03/2002 04/09/2002 7 000 euros 18/12/2002 + interest EPOUX GOLETTO      54596/00 04/02/2003 04/05/2003 8 000 euros 03/07/2003 CHAUFOUR Hubert       54757/00 19/03/2002 19/06/2002 6 500 euros 12/07/2002 ASNAR Claude            57030/00 17/06/2003 03/12/2003 20 000 euros 01/10/2003 BARTRE Georges          70753/01 12/11/2003 12/02/2004 13 500 euros 01/04/2004 GOBRY Pascal            71367/01 06/07/2004 06/10/2004 10 500 euros 27/10/2004     2. Information provided by the government of France during the detailed examination of these cases by the Committee of Ministers   In 1995, in final Resolution DH(95)254 in the Beaumartin case, the Committee of Ministers noted the measures adopted at the time by the respondent state to reduce the length of proceedings before administrative courts and the Conseil d'Etat in particular. Since that time, the European Court of Human Rights has found new violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of excessive length of proceedings before the administrative courts in general and/or before the Conseil d'Etat in particular. The respondent state has therefore adopted further measures to avoid new, similar violations.   Measures adopted   Structural measures   The main measure has been the “orientation and planning for justice Act” adopted on 9 September 2002, which aims at providing swifter justice, not least in the administrative sector, by reducing the time required for judgments to one year at every level of jurisdiction. This act defines the orientations and the scheduling of the judicial apparatus for the period 2003 – 2007 and is accompanied by texts on implementation.   To attain its objectives, the Act lays down programmes for the increase of courts' human resources, both judges (210 posts – i.e. 25% of the level existing when the Act was adopted) and registry staff (270 posts) and authorises the recruitment of assistants de justice appointed to assist members of courts as well as the Conseil d'Etat . Implementation of this recruitment programme was initiated in accordance with the Act: 59 administrative court advisors were recruited in 2002, 74 in 2003 and 85 in 2004. To date, 183 assistants de justice have been recruited.   The Act also sets up three new courts: an 8th administrative court of appeal established in Versailles on 1   September 2004 and administrative courts in Nîmes and Toulon. These new courts are additional to those already set up in Cergy-Pontoise and Melun.     It also allocates to the Conseil d'Etat and administrative courts 114 million euros for normal expenditure and 60 million in the form of authorised programmes to be consecrated principally to improving court computer services and premises.   Among other innovations, the Act makes it possible to conclude “contracts of objectives” between the Conseil d'Etat and Presidents of administrative courts of appeal or even administrative courts which so wish. These contracts specify the additional resources allocated to the court, in return for which the court commits itself, in the form of exit objectives, to improve the efficiency of its working methods and the promptness with which it deals with cases.   Procedural measures   Several measures have been taken to reduce both the number of old cases pending and the flow of new ones.   - With regard to administrative courts of appeal , Decree No. 2003-543 was adopted on 24 June 2003, modifying the regulatory part of the Code of Administrative Justice in two significant ways as regards appeal procedure: first compulsory representation by counsel at appeal, and secondly the suppression of appeals for certain kinds of proceedings involving small claims.   - Concerning disputed proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat , steps have been taken among other things to reduce the workload associated with appeals by foreigners (appeals against denial of visas and against decisions of return to the frontier, appeals on points of law against decisions of the Refugees' appeals board) which in 2001 amounted to more than 40% of the net intake of appeals before the Conseil d'Etat. Under the terms of the Decree of 10 November 2000, appeals against visa refusals must be preceded by an administrative appeal to a board specially set up for this purpose, thus curtailing the volume of such appeals. In application of the 2002 Act mentioned above, jurisdiction for appeals against administrative court judgements on return to the frontier has been transferred, as from 1 January 2005, from the Conseil d'Etat to administrative courts of appeal, the resources of which have been reinforced accordingly. Appeals of this kind previously represented practically a fifth of all appeals pending before the Conseil d'Etat . For the future, a system whereby appeals may be introduced using new communications technologies, throughout the investigatory phase, put in place experimentally at first but ultimately generally, will also contribute to improving the promptness of judgments.   Results   - With regard to administrative courts , positive results have been registered to the extent that the number of cases judged by administrative courts has increased perceptibly in recent years (increase of 15% net between 2002 and 2004) but, taking into account the considerable increase in the volume of litigation (32% net in two years) more effort is needed and will be made. At the end of 2004, the ratio of cases judged as against cases registered was 90%. Thanks to the increase in productivity, the average time to judge a case in 2004 remained close to that of 2003, i.e. 18 months, 10 days.   - With regard to administrative courts of appeal , the situation has improved notably, in particular thanks to the implementation of the reform of appeals provided in Decree No. 2003-543 (reduction in input) and the efforts undertaken in the context of the “contracts of objectives” (all objectives fixed in 2003 and 2004 were attained or, in most cases, exceeded). For the first time ever in 2003 and subsequently in 2004, the courts judged more cases than had been lodged. Thus between 2002 and 2004 the rate of coverage of new cases by cases disposed of increased by nearly 50 percentage points, from 92% to 141%, allowing a perceptible decrease in pending cases and paving the way for progress towards reducing the time required for a judgment to one year, as provided in the 2002 Act. The forecast average time is at present 1 year, 9 months and 6   days net. The results are thus encouraging, even if the rate of progress risks being affected in the future by budgetary constraints and the effect of transferring jurisdiction for some kinds of cases to administrative courts of appeal.   - With regard to disputes before the Conseil d'Etat , developments are also positive. When the final resolution in the Beaumartin case was adopted in 1995, the average time for judging cases was already less than two years, compared with 36 months in 1987 and 26 months in 1990. In 2003, for the first time ever, the objective of a number of pending cases less than the courts' annual capacity to judge them was realised and the average duration fell below the symbolic threshold of 12 months, to 10 months, 15 days, which is the target fixed in the Act of 2002. In 2004, given the sharp rise in intake (26%) the average fell back to 12½ months but the relationship between the number of pending cases and the productive capacity reached in 2003 was maintained.   Effective remedy for complaints concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings   It should also be noted that applicants consider that their case is taking too long to be settled, they have an effective remedy at their disposal, for both pending and completed proceedings (appeal founded on the state's responsibility for defective functioning of the public justice service). The European Court has itself so found (for example in its judgment of 21 October 2003 in the case of Broca and Texier-Micault against France).   The French government is of the view that all the above shows that it has acknowledged the difficulties confronting administrative courts in the exercise of their functions and taken measures to deal with them. The government will continue to make all the necessary efforts so as to avoid new violations similar to those found in these cases.