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 } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s866318B5 { width:95.18%; margin-left:4.75pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sADFC6538 { width:24.6%; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sAB5F4293 { width:12.1%; 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 } .s3767AE85 { width:25.14%; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s5EE9C9E6 { width:23.44%; 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 } .sA66022CB { width:14.72%; 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 } .s3BE4E78A { height:19.2pt } .s6682E43A { width:24.6%; 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 } .s2C4057C5 { width:12.1%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3C7DD5BA { width:25.14%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE9937FB0 { width:23.44%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s21D9EE3B { width:14.72%; 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 } .s1479B0A7 { height:13.85pt } .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 } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s5ACAE78A { height:18.3pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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)58 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Simon and Nicolas against France   (Application N o 66053/01, judgment of 8 June 2004, final on 8 September 2004 Application N o 2021/03, judgment of 27 June 2006, final on 11 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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning human rights and obligations which were to be dealt with particularly promptly before administrative courts (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 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;   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(2009)58   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of Simon and Nicolas against France     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the Simon case, the proceedings lasted from 1996 to 2000. In the Nicolas case, they began in 1999 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment. These proceedings concerned respectively the applicants’ “means of subsistence” (suppression of a minimum welfare payment) and a labour dispute.   In both cases, the European Court said that, in view of what was at stake for the applicants, the authorities should have acted with “particular promptness”.     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Simon (No. 66053/01) - 2   300 euros - 2   300 euros Paid on 11/01/2005 Nicolas (No. 2021/03) - - - - No just satisfaction   b) Individual measures   In the Simon case, the proceedings were closed in 2000. It may be noted that the applicant did not request any just satisfaction before the European Court.   In order to remedy, as far as possible, the consequences of the violation for the applicant ( restitutio in integrum ) in the Nicolas case, where proceedings were still pending when the Court delivered its judgments, the Committee asked for the proceedings at issue to be accelerated. All proceedings are now closed. The Conseil d’Etat delivered judgments on the applicant’s six appeals on 17/03/2008.     II.   General measures   These cases present similarities to other cases of length of proceedings before administrative courts, the examination of which has been closed in view of the general measures adopted (among others recruitement of staff – in particular judges, procedural measures etc.). The measures adopted appear in Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)12 in the case of Raffi against France and thirty other cases. This resolution also presents in details the effective remedy set up whereby complain may be made about the excessive length of such proceedings.   Furthermore, taking into account the specificity of these cases (“particular promptness” required in situations similar to the applicants’), and in view of the fact that the competent authorities apply the Convention directly, measures have been taken to draw their attention to these cases, so that they take it into account in practice.   These judgments have been published by the Conseil d’Etat documentation centre, on the Conseil d’Etat intranet site, and on the Administrative Tribunals’ and Administrative Courts of Appeal’s intranet site. Thus they have been brought to the attention of administrative judges, legal assistants and registry staff members of these courts. They have also been published in the “legal watch” section of these intranet sites, where they are highlighted as “particularly important judgments” for the readers.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, 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 2 April 2009 at the 1051st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies