CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 janvier 2009

.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 } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)23 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ezzouhdi against France   (Application No. 47160/99, judgment of 13 February 2001, final on 13 May 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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns an infringement of the right to private and family life of the applicant, a Moroccan national due to a final exclusion order pronounced against him following his conviction of drug offences (violation of Article 8) (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;   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 854 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (20 October 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(2009)23   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Ezzouhdi against France     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the violation of the right to private and family life of the applicant, a Moroccan national due to a final exclusion order pronounced against him following his conviction of drug offences (violation of Article 8).   The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention referring to the fact that the applicant, who had moved to France at the age of five, had lived there regularly since then, had been educated and had worked there for several years, that his mother, his brothers and sisters lived there, that his father had lived there for several years until his death and that the applicant had maintained no links with the country of his birth except that of nationality. Finally the Court concluded that the outright exclusion order was a particularly harsh measure given the nature of the applicant’s offences, which could not be considered extremely serious.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   The applicant made no request for just satisfaction except for costs and expenses, in respect of which he failed to present vouchers. Accordingly the Court considered that it should not grant any sum in this respect.   The applicant was given a compulsory residence order by decision of 3 July 2001. On 15 December 2002 he was given a provisional residence permit enabling him to take a job.   The Lyons Appeal Court, seised on 12 November 2002 with a request to lift the exclusion order, issued a decision on 2 September 2003 in which it referred to the European Court’s judgment and drew the consequences, ordered that the exclusion measure should be lifted entirely.     II.   General measures   It is recalled that on 17 November 1999, subsequent to the facts of the present case, the Garde des sceaux (Minister of Justice) sent a circular (reference NOR: JUSD9930176C ) on “Criminal policy with regard to the imposition and lifting of exclusion orders” to prosecutors at appeal courts and at regional courts and the first presidents of the same courts (see CM/ResDH(2009)1 in the Mehemi v. France case).   In addition, the Court’s judgment was partly published in the Bulletin d’information de la Cour de Cassation No. 535 on 15/05/2001, in particular commented upon in the CREDHO’s acts of the 8th information session (see Cahiers du CREDHO No. 8).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted 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 9 January 2009 at the 1043rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies