CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juillet 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. July 1997 Hentrich v. France (interpretation) - 13616/88 Judgment 3.7.1997 Article 46 Article 46-1 Abide by judgment Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Just satisfaction Interest for delay Request by the Commission for interpretation of an earlier judgment: request dismissed [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] Under terms of judgment of 3 July 1995 and in accordance with Article 53 of Convention, respondent State was required to pay applicant sums awarded within three months - these sums had been paid nearly two months after expiry of time-limit - for Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe to supervise execution of judgment in question. Default interest to be paid in event of delayed settlement not stipulated in judgment - in point 3 of operative provisions Court had done no more than order payment of interest on costs and expenses - pratice of awarding default interest in event of delayed settlement not introduced until January 1996. That being so, and in view of clear wording of operative provisions of the judgment of 3 July 1995, to allow application for interpretation would not be to clarify "the meaning and scope" of that judgment but rather to modify it in respect of an issue which Court had decided with "binding force" - accordingly no matter for interpretation. Conclusion : request rejected (eight votes to one).   © 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