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 } .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 } .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)41 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights G.B. II against France   (Application No. 44069/98, judgment of 2 October 2001, final on 2 January 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 in this case, transmitted by the Court once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns breach to the principle of equality of arms, during a trial before a Cour d'assises because his defence counsel was not given sufficient time to study new documents on the basis of which an expert changed his opinion and because the court rejected his request for a new expert opinion (Violation of Article 6§§1 and 3b) (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 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(s) 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 871st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (24   February   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)41   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of G.B. II against France     Introductory case summary   This case concerns a breach to the principle of equality of arms, during a trial before a Cour d'assises because his defence counsel was not given sufficient time to study new documents on the basis of which an expert changed his opinion and because the court rejected his request for a new expert opinion     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 90   000 FF - 90   000 FF Paid on 29/08/2002 interests paid on 5/11/2003   b) Individual measures   The applicant has had the possibility of requesting the reopening of the proceedings before domestic courts, in application of Article 626-1 of the Code of criminal procedure.     II.   General measures   The judgment was commented in a Law review «   Journée du droit international   », 2002, No. 1, page   270.   Given, on the one hand, the particular circumstances of the case, and, on the other hand, the direct effect given to the Convention by the French tribunals, no further general measure is required.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken 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 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies