CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 juin 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s39EF71B7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .sC16889D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s589818D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF2CE8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6FD69B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s2E49B105 { background-color:#ffffff } .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)77 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Sayoud against France   (Application No. 70456/01, judgment of 26 July 2007, final on 26 October 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 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 a violation of the right to respect for private and family life caused by the expulsion of the applicant, a national of the respondent state, following criminal proceedings in which he was wrongly held to be an Algerian national (violation of Article 8) (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(2010)77   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Sayoud against France     Introductory case summary   This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life (violation of Article 8). The applicant, a French national, was born in Algeria when it was French territory. He lived in France as from 1965 and is the father of two minor children who are French nationals and live in France with their mother, also a French national. In 2000, he was sentenced to exclusion from French territory for five years, following criminal proceedings for drug trafficking in which he had been wrongly supposed to be Algerian. In 2002, the applicant was placed on a flight to Algeria. Taking into account that neither national nor international law authorises the expulsion of nationals, the European Court held that the measures taken against the applicant had not been “in accordance with the law”.     I.   Individual measures   The European Court rejected the applicant’s request for just satisfaction which was not lodged in conformity with the Rules of the Court. The applicant was readmitted to France in April 2006. In October 2006, a certificate of nationality and a national identity card were delivered to the applicant by the French authorities (respectively the Registry of the Rheims Tribunal d’instance and the Rheims Sub-Prefect’s office). Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.     II.   General measures   According to the judgment (§ 24), the violation originates in the authorities’ manifest negligence. The European Court said that it did not question the government’s good faith in stating that the authorities would not have deported the applicant had they known that he was a French national. It even added that there is little doubt that the applicant himself contributed to the complexity of his own situation by being dilatory in obtaining documentary proof of his French nationality. It insisted however that the authorities should have made sure that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 was “in accordance with the law”. Considering in particular the date and place of the applicant’s birth and the existence of national regulations entitling persons born in Algeria at that time to take French nationality (Order No.   62 ‑ 825 of 21/07/1962, see §17), the authorities should have ascertained whether or not the applicant had made use of those provisions before they decided to exclude him from French territory and enforced the decision. According to authorities, the violation in this case seems to be an isolated case and no general measure would be required. However, for all practical purposes, the judgment of the European Court accompanied by a comment is subject to permanent dissemination on the Intranet site of the Department of Public Liberties and Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Interior, accessible to all agents of central administration and decentralised services (prefects’ offices and national police services, in particular). The judgment has also been published on the Legifrance website.     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 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies