BONNET AGAINST FRANCE

 RESOLUTION DH (97) 346

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION No. 21502/93

BONNET AGAINST FRANCE

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 July 1997

at the 597th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the report drawn up on 16 January 1996 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 4 February 1992 by Mr Michel Bonnet against France (Application No. 21502/93);

Whereas on 19 February 1996 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 of the Convention;

Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 28 June 1995, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts;

Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

Whereas, at the 571st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 13 September 1996, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 12 July 1996;

Whereas at the 576th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held, by a decision adopted on 15 November 1996, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of France was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 30 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 10 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 40 000 French francs and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 13 September and 15 November 1996, having regard to France’s obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of France accordingly recalled that measures had been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation found in the present case, notably through the setting up of administrative courts of appeal, the redefinition of the competences of the Conseil d’Etat and the increase of personnel and means in order to speed up the administrative proceedings (see Resolution DH (95) 254 in the case of Beaumartin against France), and that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that at the end of December 1996, within the time-limit set, the Government of France paid the applicant the total sum of 40 000 French francs as just satisfaction,

Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case;

Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy