CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 juin 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 164 June 2013 Trévalec v. Belgium (just satisfaction) - 30812/07 Judgment 25.6.2013 [Section II] Article 41 Just satisfaction Direction that a Contracting State, not party to the proceedings, should not claim back compensation it had paid to applicant out of sum awarded against respondent State in respect of non-pecuniary damage   Facts – In a judgment on the merits of 14   June 2011 (see Information Note   142 ), the Court had found that there had been a violation of Article   2 under its substantive head on the ground that Belgium had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect the right to life of the applicant, a French national who had sustained severe injuries, and had reserved the question of just satisfaction. The applicant had obtained from the French compensation fund for victims of terrorism and other offences (the CIVI) a significant sum covering both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for which Belgium had been found responsible in that judgment. Law – Article 41: The Court found reasonable the CIVI’s award in respect of pecuniary damage. As to the non-pecuniary damage and in the circumstances of the case, the Court considered it appropriate to award the applicant an additional EUR 50,000. Noting that the compensation fund would be entitled to ask the applicant to reimburse part of the amount that he had been paid in so far as it corresponded to the amount of the Court’s award, the Court found that it was fair to stipulate that the said amount should not be claimed back from him.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes