CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 avril 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; 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)47 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Labergère against France   (Application No. 16846/02, judgment of 26 September 2006, final on 26 December 2006)     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 to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, due to the impossibility for him to lodge an appeal against his criminal conviction within the deadlines, in particular because of his medical situation (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 its 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), 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)47   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Labergère against France     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1). In 2001, the applicant’s appeal against an Assize Court judgment convicting him and sentencing him to 18 years’ imprisonment was declared inadmissible by the Cour de cassation on the ground that it had been lodged after the expiry of the deadline (10 days from the delivery of the judgment, for the accused, see Article   380 ‑ 1   ff. of the Code of criminal procedure).   But in the particular circumstances of the case and given the importance of the appeal for the applicant, the decision of the Cour de cassation was excessively rigorous. In reaching this conclusion, the European Court took into account in particular the fact that for 7 out of the 10 days during which the applicant might have appealed, he had been held in a psychiatric hospital, and that doubts existed concerning his lucidity not only while he was hospitalised, but also before and after (see paragraphs 20 to 25 of the judgment).     I.   Individual measures   The applicant could have asked for reopening of his case pursuant to Articles L 626-1 ff. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the information available, the applicant did not use this possibility.   He made no request for a just satisfaction before the European Court.   II.   General measures   The violation was due to the manner in which the law was implemented by the Cour de cassation , in the specific circumstances of this case (the European Court noted that the circumstances in which the violation occurred were “not ordinary”, see paragraph 23).   In order to ensure that in future the law is implemented in accordance with the Convention as interpreted in the present judgment, the French authorities sent the judgment out to the First President of the Cour de cassation , and to the Prosecutor General of the Cour de cassation (as well as to the Prosecutor General of the Bourges Court of Appeal), who apply the Convention directly. A summary of the judgment has also been published in the Cour de cassation Information Bulletin No. 648 of 15/10/2006, as well as in «   La Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme – 2006 - Arrêts concernant la France et leurs commentaires   » - a publication of the European Law Observatory ( Observatoire de Droit Européen ) available on the Internet site of the Cour de cassation ).   Furthermore, it is recalled that on a related question (admissibility of an appeal on points of law to the Cour de cassation , lodged out of time, also in very particular circumstances; see the Tricard case, Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)52 adopted at the 992nd meeting, April 2007), the French authorities indicated that the criminal chamber of the Cour de cassation now admits that appeals may be accepted even after the expiry of the time limit if, “due to a case of force majeure or to an insuperable obstacle beyond his/her control, the complainant was unable to conform to the time limit”.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the no further individual measures are necessary, that the general measures adopted 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 2 April 2009 at the 1051st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies