CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .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(2008)3 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Association Ekin against France   (Application No. 39288/98, judgment of 17 July 2001, final on 17 October 2001)     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 “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern, first, an infringement of the freedom of expression of the applicant (a Basque association) on account of a ban on one of its books in 1988 on the basis of Section 14 of the Law of 29/07/1881 on press freedom as amended by a decree of 06/05/1939, which empowers the Minister of the Interior to ban the publication of foreign publications (violation of Article 10) and, secondly, the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1) (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 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 by the Court in its 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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 906th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (22   December 2004), 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(2008)3   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Association Ekin against France     Introductory case summary   The case concerns an infringement of the freedom of expression of the applicant (a Basque association) on account of a ban on one of its books in 1988 on the basis of Section 14 of the Law of 29/07/1881 on press freedom as amended by a decree of 06/05/1939, which empowers the Minister of the Interior to ban the publication of foreign publications. The European Court considered that the discriminatory system established by this provision was not necessary in a democratic society, the more so considering that the conditions for imposing such a ban were not indicated in the law and that the existing judicial review procedures provide insufficient guarantees against abuse (violation of Article 10).   The case also concerns the excessive length (9 years, 1 month, 5 days) of the proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts aimed at quashing the Minister of the Interior’s decree (violation of Article 6§1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 250   000 FRF 50   000 FRF 58   500 FRF 358   500 FRF Paid with interest on 15/02/2002   b) Individual measures   By a judgment of 9 July 1997 the Conseil d’Etat quashed the Minister of the Interior’s Decree of 29   April   1988 banning the circulation, distribution and sale of the book published by the applicant.     II.   General measures   Violation of Article 10 of the Convention:   The judgment of the European Court was published in several Administrative Law Reviews and in particular in Actualité Juridique du Droit Administratif AJDA No. 1/2002.   In a judgment of 7 February 2003, the Conseil d’Etat held that the provisions of Decree of 6   May   1939 which allow for a general and absolute ban of circulation and distribution of a foreign publication without stating the reasons why such an ban could be pronounced, were contrary to Article 10 of the Convention; the Conseil d’Etat enjoined the Prime Minister to repealed the Decree of 6   May   1939 (C.E. 7   February   2003 GISTI app. No. 243634).   The Decree of 6 May 1939 was finally repealed by Decree No. 2004-1044 of 04 October 2004 ( Journal officiel de la République française of 5 October 2004).   Violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention:   The issue of length of proceedings before administrative courts was examined separately in the framework, in particular, of the case of SAPL (judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02) which led to the adoption of Resolution ResDH(2005)63 in “58 cases against France of excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before the administrative courts”.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations 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 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies