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 } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s50D39FD8 { width:23.66%; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB706B882 { width:16.14%; 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 } .sB38F1429 { width:20.06%; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sFCD0B805 { width:19.18%; 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 } .sFBD4F1E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:8.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA3ED7237 { width:20.96%; 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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3C3E1F3B { width:23.66%; 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:top } .s81FEF90A { font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s7166084D { width:16.14%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s879C31D9 { width:20.06%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FD1E645 { width:19.18%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s83C0C56E { width:20.96%; 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:top } .sCC5122F2 { 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:top } .sBEEA837A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:354pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s38515D7A { height:29.05pt } .s695A465C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:246pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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)48 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Richard v. France and 6 other cases requiring “exceptional diligence” before the administrative courts   Richard, application No. 33441/96, judgment of 22 April 1998 Pailot, application No. 32217/96, judgment of 22 April 1998 Henra, application No. 36313/97, judgment of 29 April 1998 Leterme, application No. 36317/97, judgment of 29 April 1998 Jacquie and Ledun, application No. 40493/98, judgment of 28 March 2000 final on 28 June 2000 C.K., application No. 57753/00, judgment of 19 March 2002, final on 19 June 2002 Beaumer, application No. 65323/01, judgment of 8 June 2004, final on 8 September 2004     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 and 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 certain proceedings concerning civil rights or obligation before administrative courts, for compensation for harm sustained by the applicants or by their relatives on account of the applicants’ infection, or on account of their relatives’   infection with the HIV virus and/or the Hepatitis C virus as a result of blood transfusions (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1);   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 former Article 53 or 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, which are applicable by decision of the Committee of Ministers to cases under former Article 54;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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 (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 775th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (17 December 2001) for the Richard, Pailot, Henra and Leterme cases, at the 760th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (23 July 2001) for the Jacquie and Ledun case, at the 841st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (17 June 2003) for the C.K. case and at the 914th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (7 February 2005) for the case of Beaumer,   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)48   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the case of Richard v. France and 6 other cases requiring “exceptional diligence” before the administrative courts       Introductory case summary   These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts, for compensation for harm sustained by the applicants or by their relatives on account of the applicants’ infection or their relatives’ infection with the HIV virus and/or the Hepatitis C virus as a result of blood transfusions (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction     Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Richard Michel 33441/96 - 200   000 FF 42   210 FF 242   210 FF Paid on 18 June 1998 Pailot Jean-Marc 32217/96 - 150   000 FF 42   210 FF 242   210 FF Paid on 18 June 1998 Henra Mathieu 36313/97 - 200   000 FF 42   210 FF 242   210 FF Paid on 18 June 1998 Leterme Pierre 36317/97 - 200   000 FF 42   210 FF 242   210 FF Paid on 18 June 1998 Jacquie Marie-Claire et Ledun Chantal 40493/98 - 60   000 FF 20   000 FF 80   000 FF Paid on 13 July 2000 C.K. 7753/00 - 35   000 euros 3   281,92 euros 38   281, 92 euros Paid on 21 October 2002 with default interest B eaumer 65323/01 - 20   000 euros 2   000 euros 22   000 euros Paid on 27 October 2004   b) Individual measures     All compensation proceedings pending before the French courts when the Court delivered its judgments were completed within the months following the dates on which the Court judgments were delivered.     II.   General measures   Measures were rapidly adopted in the administrative court to ensure that the cases submitted by persons infected with the HIV virus were processed with the “exceptional diligence” required by the European Convention.   Such cases are given priority treatment by the registry, following notification by the judges. The deadlines given to the parties for their submissions are shortened and set by the examining judge, with due regard for the adversarial principle.   In addition, the president of the bench may, at short notice, set a date for the end of the investigation and an indicative date for the hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Article R611-11 of the Code of Administrative Justice (former Article R. 142.2 of the Code of Administrative Courts and Administrative Appeal Courts).   Article R611-11 is worded as follows: “Where justified by the circumstances of the case, particularly in the event of a stay of execution of the impugned decision, the president of the bench may, once the application has been registered, make use of the power provided in Article R. 154.1 to set a date on which the investigations shall be closed. At the same time as this is notified to the parties, the latter are also notified of the anticipated date of the hearing (...).”   In view of the direct effect given to the Convention and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in French law (cf Cass. Sociale 14 January 1999 Bozkurt, Cass. criminelle 16   January 2001 judgment No. 7688, Cass.   criminelle 16 May 2001 judgment No. 3659), the French government is convinced that the courts, in assessing these criteria, will have due regard for the case-law of the European Court.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent sate   The French government is of the opinion that all these measures will prevent any further violations similar to those found in this case and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies