CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 mars 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC8E49BC { width:91.02%; margin-left:8.75pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s1A4A6575 { height:33.15pt } .sD1F8F43B { width:16.16%; 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 } .s5D05D1FF { width:16.32%; 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 } .s7372B298 { width:27.84%; 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 } .s3600663B { width:24.28%; 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 } .s84913F9D { width:15.38%; 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 } .s79A1263B { height:21.7pt } .s9EAB0156 { width:16.16%; 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 } .s1409C410 { width:16.32%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7780A1BF { width:27.84%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD517C7 { width:24.28%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6406173 { width:15.38%; 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 } .sF5B4B0A7 { height:10.85pt } .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 } .s399B5D7A { height:22.35pt } .sD87BB0A7 { height:11.45pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .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(2010)4 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Mocie and Desserprit against France   (Application No. 46096/99, judgment of 8 April 2003, final on 8 July 2003; application No. 76977/01, judgment of 28 November 2006, final 28 February 2007)     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 civil proceedings before military pensions tribunals of incapacity (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 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, within the time-limit set, 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(2010)4   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Mocie & Desserprit against France     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before military pensions tribunals of incapacity (violations of Article 6§1). In the Mocie case, the first set of proceedings began in 1988 and was still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (14   years and 10 months); the second began in 1990 and ended in 1998 (almost 8   years). The European Court underlined that in view of the applicant’s lack of means and the deterioration of his health, his claims for benefits were vital to him and the authorities should have been particularly diligent in dealing with them. In the Desserprit case, the proceedings began in 1988 and ended in 2004 (more than 15 years).     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 Mocie (46096/99) - 10   000 euros 482,33 euros 1   482,33 euros Paid on 6/10/2003 Desserprit (76977/01) - 15   000 euros 500 euros 15   500 euros Paid on 16/03/2007   b) Individual measures   In both cases, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. Concerning the only set of proceedings that was still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment - the first set of proceedings in the Mocie case - the French authorities indicated that it was closed by a judgment of the Conseil d’Etat delivered on 9/06/2008. No other individual measure is thus necessary.     II.   General measures   Proceedings before military pensions tribunals are specific and take place partly before civil courts, partly before administrative courts. Thus, reference should be made to the measures taken to avoid excessive length of civil proceedings (see the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)39 in the case of C.R. and 9 other cases concerning the length of civil proceedings) and to the measures taken to avoid excessive length of administrative proceedings, including before the Conseil d’Etat (see the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)121 in the case of Raffi and 30   other cases concerning the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts, and the lack of an effective remedy).   Furthermore, it emerges from these final resolutions that applicants considering that their case is taking too long to be settled before the administrative courts dispose of an appeal founded on the State’s responsibility for defective functioning of the public justice service (a remedy which was found to be effective by the European Court, in its judgment in Broca and Texier-Micault v. France of 21/10/2003, for both pending and completed proceedings). Furthermore, in cases of excessive length of proceedings before the civil courts, an effective compensatory remedy is provided by Article L   781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation.   It should also be added that since Law No. 2002-73 of 17/01/2002 ( “Loi de modernisation sociale” ), the appeals on points of law against decisions delivered by the Cours régionales des pensions (appeal courts) are made before the Conseil d’Etat , the Commission spéciale de cassation des pensions (Special Pensions Appeals Commission) having been suppressed (compare with Final Resolution DH(98)361 in the Sass case).   Both judgments were published on the Legifrance website and sent out to the Conseil d’Etat , which ensures the dissemination of the European Court’s case-law to all administrative courts. They were also disseminated via the website of the Service of European and International Affairs, which is accessible to all national courts and departments of the Ministry of Justice.   The Desserprit judgment was sent in particular to the General Prosecutor of the Besançon Court of Appeal.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent 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 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.