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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB30C44B0 { 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { 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 } .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)51 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Slimani against France   (Application No. 57671/00, judgment of 27 July 2004, final on 27 October 2004)     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 judgment in this case transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant's inability to take part in the inquiry to establish the cause of the death of her partner (violation of Article 2) (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 judgment;   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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (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 judgment, 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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix),   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)51   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Slimani against France     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the death of the applicant's partner in 1999 when he was detained in the Marseille-Arenc Administrative Detention Centre while waiting to be conducted to the frontier. The investigation was closed without result by the public prosecutor in June 2001.   The European Court found that the enquiry into the causes of death had not been effective in that the applicant had been excluded. The Court recalled that in such circumstances, persons close to the deceased should automatically be associated with the conduct of the investigation (violation of Article 2).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 20   000 euros 15   000 euros 35   000 euros Paid on 22 December 2004   b) Individual measures   It appears from the judgment that the applicant had had access to the inquiry documents during the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.   Furthermore, the Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages she sustained as a result of being denied access to the enquiry into the causes of her partner's death (see above).   No other request has been made by the applicant.     II.   General measures   The Court found that compliance with Article 2 of the Convention would have required permitting the applicant to take part in the inquiry into the cause of her partner's death without having to lodge a criminal complaint beforehand, which did not happen in this case.   Since the material time, French law has been recently modified in this respect, as the Court itself noted (paragraph 48 of the judgment). Henceforth, persons close to the deceased may become civil parties to the enquiry and thus obtain access to it, without having to lodge a criminal complaint (Art. 80-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instituted by Law No. 2002/1138 of 09/09/2002).   Furthermore, the judgment of the Court was posted, with an explanatory note, on the intranet site of the Ministry if justice, where it may be consulted by all magistrates including investigating magistrates.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations 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