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 } .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 } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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)10 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Lutz against France   (Application No. 48215/99, judgment of 26 March 2002, final on 26 June 2002)     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 the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before administrative courts (violation Article 6§1) as well as the absence of an effective remedy in practice or in law to complain of a breach of the right to be heard within a reasonable time (violation of Article 13) (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;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 834th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (24   April   2003), 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)10   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Lutz against France     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before administrative courts (violation Article 6§1) as well as the absence of an effective remedy in practice or in law to complain of a breach of the right to be heard within a reasonable time (violation of Article 13).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 6   097,96 euros 990,92 euros 7088,88 euros Paid on 19 July 2002     b) Individual measures   The court, making an assessment on an equitable basis, awarded just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant on account of the violations of Articles 6§1 and 13. Acceleration of the domestic proceedings has been requested when the case was examined by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   Effective national remedy in practice or in law to complain of a breach of the right to be heard within a reasonable time,   In its judgment of 26 March 2002, the European Court of Human Rights found that when Mr Lutz lodged his application before it, neither of the judgments delivered by the Paris administrative Court (Magiera, 24 June 1999, Levy, 30   September 1999) establishing administrative courts' responsibility for the length of certain proceedings could be considered as constituting an effective remedy, in practice or in law, within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.   However, after the facts of the present case, by judgment of 11 July 2001, the Administrative Court of Appeal granted compensation in respect of damage suffered on account of a violation of the requirements of Article   6§1, of the Convention (Paris administrative Court of appeal, Magiera). The Conseil d'Etat ( assemblée du contentieux ) dismissed an appeal on a point of law lodged by the Minister of Justice on the grounds of Article 6§1, and Article13 of the Convention and the general principles governing administrative responsibility, and confirmed that administrative courts could be held responsible for excessive length of certain proceedings (C.E. Ass. 28 June 2002, Minister of Justice v. Magiera).   In its judgment of Broca and Texier-Micault (21 October 2003, final on 23 January 2004), the European Court noted that the judgment of 28 June 2002 delivered by the Conseil d'Etat had been published in numerous publications (website of the Conseil d'Etat as from 1 July 2002; publication and comments in AJDA , mention on the Legalnews website in July 2002, mention in the Lettre de la Cour d'appel administrative de Paris of September 2002; publication of the comments by the Government Commissioner in Petites Affiches of 2   October 2002, comments in the issue of the same day of JCP Semaine Juridique and comments in Gazette du Palais of 13 October 2002).   The European Court found accordingly that the Magiera judgment had acquired sufficient legal certainty and could not be ignored by the public as from 1 January 2003 and therefore as from this date it should be exhausted by applicants for the purpose of Article 35§1, of the Convention.   The Administrative Code of Justice was modified by decree of 28 July 2005 n o   2005 ‑ 911   ; Article   R   311 ‑ 17 now provides that “the Conseil d'Etat has jurisdiction in first and final instance (...) for actions against the state for excessive length of proceedings before Administrative courts”.   Thus an effective remedy exists in French law, in practice as in law, to complain about excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts.   Length of proceedings before administrative courts   A first series of measures was adopted in 1995 to reduce the length of proceedings before administrative courts in general and the Conseil d'Etat in particular: see Final Resolution DH(95)254 in the Beaumartin case.   Further measures have subsequently been adopted: see Resolution ResDH(2005)63 concerning judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 58 cases against France regarding excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken 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