CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 juin 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 } .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 } .s6E90DD75 { width:32.74%; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sD97D6F3E { width:12.94%; 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 } .sFC713194 { width:18.66%; 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 } .sCED0A951 { width:17.32%; 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 } .s67EB1B60 { width:18.34%; 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 } .s26E38229 { width:32.74%; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sAB20F15B { width:12.94%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s74D6690F { width:18.66%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8908586 { width:17.32%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF0466724 { width:18.34%; 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 } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s57FB5D7A { height:28.55pt } .sB76D263B { height:23.5pt } .s12F6263B { height:24.3pt } .sD5AE2CC7 { height:4.8pt } .s23FE5D7A { height:24.45pt } .s26ACE78A { height:13.4pt } .s29BA263B { height:22.5pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s28EFCB81 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; font-size:12pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)39 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights C.R. against France and 9 other cases concerning the length of civil proceedings before civil courts   (see list in appendix)     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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken 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 (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;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), 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(2008)39   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the C.R. case and 9 other cases against France     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings before civil courts (violations of Article   6, paragraph 1).   The Lutz No. II case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy to complain about it (violation of Article   13).   When the Court delivered its judgment, the proceedings at issue were closed (between 1981 and 2002), except in the cases of C.R. et C.D.     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number, judgment of ..., final on ... Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total C.R. No. 42407/98 23/09/2003, 23/12/2003   12   500 EUR 500 EUR 13   000 EUR Paid on 25/03/2004, plus interest      J.-M.F. No. 42268/98 01/06/2004, 10/11/2004     10   000 EUR   10   000 EUR Paid on 03/01/2005 E.R. No. 50344/99 15/07/2003, 15/10/2003   6   000 EUR 2   000 EUR 8   000 EUR Paid on 12/01/2004 Nicolle No. 51887/99 25/11/2003, 25/02/2004   4   000 EUR   4 000 EUR   Paid on 16/04/2004 Huart No. 55829/00 25/11/2003, 25/02/2004   10   000 EUR   10   000 EUR Paid on 19/05/2004 Signe No. 55875/00 14/10/2003, 14/01/2004   12   000 EUR   12   000 EUR Paid on 18/03/2004 Versini No. 40096/98 10/07/2001, 10/10/2001   30 000 French francs (approximately 4   573,47 EUR) 20   000 French francs (approximately 3   048,98 EUR) 50   000 French francs (approximately 7   622,45 EUR) Paid on 08/08/2002, plus interest Name and application number, judgment of ..., final on ... Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total C. D. No. 42405/98 07/01/2003, 21/05/2003   10   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 11   000 EUR   Paid on 16/12/2003, plus interest Lutz II No. 49531/99 17/06/2003, revised on 25/11/2003, final on 25/02/2004   4   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 5   000 EUR (allocated jointly to the heirs of the late applicant) Paid on 15/04/2004 [2] Granata No. 51434/99 15/07/2003, 15/10/2003   1   000 EUR 1   000 EUR 2   000 EUR Paid on 12/01/2004     b) Individual measures   No measure was necessary in the cases were the proceedings at issue were closed.   The Committee of Ministers requested the acceleration of the proceedings which were still pending when the Court delivered its judgments.   In the C.R. case , at the stage of the execution of the European Court's judgment, the applicant complained several times that the proceedings were still pending. The Ministry of Justice has twice called the Appeal Court's attention to the need to close the proceedings as quickly as possible following the finding of a violation by the European Court and the Committee of Ministers' request to accelerate them. The proceedings went on with the required promptness. On 24/02/2005, the case was referred by the Cour de cassation to the Court of Appeal, which delivered its judgment on 24/05/2005.   In the C.D. case , the proceedings at issue are closed. The judgment delivered by the Chambéry Court of appeal on 24/01/2001 became final following two decisions of the Court of cassation of 07/07/2003 and 08/07/2003.     II.   General measures   The Committee of Ministers took stock of the measures below in a decision of 25/04/2005 (922nd   DH meeting).   1) Violations of Article 6§1     The five-year orientation and programming law for Justice ( loi quinquennale d'orientation et de programmation pour la justice, LOPJ) was adopted on 09/09/2002, to reach several objectives, principally to improve the effectiveness of justice in particular by reducing the length of civil and criminal cases.   First, this implies a large increase in court staff. Between 1998 and 2002 more than 2400 new posts had already been created in the judicial services. The LOPJ amplified this trend, the creation of 4450 supplementary posts having been programmed between 2002 and 2007 (950 magistrates and 3500 state employees and agents of the judicial services), with the objective inter alia to reduce the time taken by courts to deliver judgments, in civil as well as in criminal cases, and to absorb backlogs. In 2004 only, 709 additional posts, including 150 magistrates and 380 court clerks were created. Since then, the recruitment of magistrates has considerably increased, exceeding 300 posts a year. The trend is similar for clerks of court and senior clerks of court.   Moreover, “objective-setting contracts” were signed with certain pilot sites (Douai and Aix-en-Provence courts of appeal): in return for additional staff and financial means, the courts have undertaken to reduce considerably the time taken to deliver judgments.   What is more, new quaterly statistics are now compiled to identify any anomaly as quickly as possible. These precise figures, now available 5 to 6 weeks after the end of each quarter (period of reference), include the number of new cases, the number of closed cases, the backlog of cases at the beginning of the period and the average time taken by the closed cases.   Finally, it should be recalled that specific measures had also been taken to limit the length of proceedings before the Cour de cassation (Hermant case, final Resolution ResDH(2003)88) and before the Aix ‑ en ‑ Provence Court of Appeal (Bozza case, final Resolution ResDH(2002)63).   2) Violation of Article 13 (Lutz case)   The European Court recalled that in the Nouhaud case (judgment of 09/07/2002) it had considered that an application for compensation under Article L   781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had, since the facts at the origin of the present case, acquired sufficient legal certainty to be considered an effective remedy.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have, as far as possible, remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases. It considers also that all the measures taken show the efforts made to avoid excessive length of proceedings before Civil Courts; the government will continue to make all the necessary efforts to avoid new violations similar to those found in these cases. The government concludes that it has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46 paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies [2] paid into their estate via the notary.