CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-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:top } .sF004B676 { 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:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s88A4DB4E { 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:middle } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC77F4BD6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:40.8pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s6A269875 { 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:middle } .sE79671F6 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s81FEF90A { font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)42 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Delbec III, D.M., L.R. and Laidin against France   (Applications No. 43125/98, 41376/98, 33395/96, 43191/98, judgments issued between 18 June 2002 and 5 November 2002, final between 18 September 2002 and 5 February 2003)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the excessive length of time taken by civil courts (Regional Courts) to decide on applications for immediate release from psychiatric hospital (between 1996 et 1998) (violations of Article 5, paragraph 4) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with France’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments as well as the default interest due, if necessary, (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix,     DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.                                                                                               Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)42   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Delbec III, D.M., L.R. and Laidin against France     Introductory case summary   The cases concern the length of time taken by civil courts (Regional Courts) to decide on urgent applications for immediate release from psychiatric hospital. The first three cases concern applications introduced by the applicants between 1996 and 1998 for which lasted respectively slightly more than three months (the applicant having been released after 1 month), one year and 20 days (the applicant having been released after 3 months) and a little over six months (the applicant having already been released after 24 days). Concerning the fourth case, the applicant was released after more than 5 weeks (violations of Article 5, paragraph 4).     I.   Payments of just satisfaction   Details of just satisfaction   Name Application No Date of Judgment   Final on Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Delbec III 43125/98 18/06/2002 18/09/2002 3 500 €   3 500 € Paid on 09/12/2002 D.M. 41376/98 27/06/2002 27/09/2002 6   500 € 1   000 € 7   500 € Paid on 13/12/2002 L.R. 33395/96 27/06/2002 27/09/2002 6   000 € 1   000 € 7   000 € Paid on 17/01/2003 default interests paid on 12/01/2004 Laidin Monique 43191/98 05/11/2002 05/02/2003 6   000 € 1   000 € 7   000 € Paid on 10/06/2003 default interests paid on 20/04/2004       II.   General measures   On 22 December 2005, the Ministry of Justice sent out to all the judiciary a dépêche on the requirements stemming from Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention and the European Court's case-law concerning the way in which applications for immediate release from psychiatric detention should be dealt with. This dépêche was sent to public prosecutors before courts of appeal and civil courts (Regional Courts), as well as to the presidents of the same courts.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that by adopting the measures mentioned above, France thus satisfied its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies