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 } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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)59 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 7 cases against France mainly concerning the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts   (see details 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 mainly concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts and, in certain cases, the lack of an effective remedy (violations of Articles 6, paragraph 1, and 13) (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 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(2009)59   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in in 7 cases against France mainly concerning the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts     Introductory case summary   All these cases (see list below) concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of “criminal” charges before the administrative courts, and/or the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, and/or of Article 13).   The Louerat case also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   As to the Laidin No. 2 case, it also concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before civil courts (appeal for damages) and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, and of Article 13).   The proceedings at issue had been ended when the European Court delivered its judgments in these cases, except in the Louerat and SIES cases.     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 Paid on Laidin No. 2 (39282/98) 07/01/2003 07/04/2003 - 13   000 euros 1   000 euros 10/06/2003 Louerat (44964/98) 13/02/2003 13/05/2003 - 6   000 euros - 23/09/2003 (+ interest) SIES (56198/00) 19/03/2002 19/06/2002 - 6   500 euros 1   838,54 euros 23/04/2003 (+ interest) Storck (73804/01) 14/09/2004 14/12/2004 - 8   000 euros - 22/04/2005 (+ interest) Varelas (16616/02) 27/07/2006 27/10/2006 - 6   000 euros 1   500 euros 16/03/2007 (+ interest) Société au service du développement (40391/02) 11/04/2006 11/07/2006 - 8   000 euros 5   000 euros 14/11/2007 (+ interest) Aiouaz (23101/03) 28/06/2007 28/09/2007 - 6   000 euros 500 euros 09/11/2007   b) Individual measures   Concerning the two cases in which the proceedings were still pending at the time of the Court’s judgments were delivered (Louerat and SIES), the judgments of the European Court were sent to the authorities concerned and in order to remedy, as far as possible, the consequences of the violations for the applicants ( restitutio in integrum ), the acceleration of the proceedings was requested. They are now closed. The proceedings in the Louerat case ended with a Conseil d’Etat judgment of 04/08/2006. The proceedings in the SIES case ended with a judgment of the Paris Administrative Court of appeal of 25/03/2003 (no appeal was made against this judgment).   The European Court also granted the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained because of the violations.   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 – after the material time in the present six cases (among others recruitment 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 the effective remedy set up whereby complain may be made about the excessive length of proceedings.   The Louerat case, which also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings, presents similarities to another group of cases, the examination of which has been closed in view of the general measures adopted – after the material time in Louerat (among others recruitment of staff – in particular judges, procedural measures, budget increasing etc.). The measures adopted appear in Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)39 in the case of Etcheveste and Bidart against France and nine similar cases. This resolution also presents the effective remedy created whereby complain may be made about the excessive length of such proceedings.   The Laidin n o 2 case, which also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before civil courts, presents similarities to another group of cases, the examination of which has been closed in view of the general measures adopted – after the material time (among others recruitment of staff – in particular judges, procedural measures etc.). The measures adopted appear in Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)39 in the case of C.R. against France and nine similar cases . This resolution also presents the effective remedy created whereby complain may be made about the excessive length of such proceedings.   Finally it is recalled that the French authorities set up the practice of systematically disseminating the European Court’s judgments to the authorities concerned so that these authorities, which apply the Convention directly, can take them into account in practice.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have remedied as far as possible 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