Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)159
Human Rights
Application No. 17572/90
A.C. against France
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 December 2007
at the 1013th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former 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 5 April 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 26 October 1990 by a American national, Mr A.C., against France;
Whereas on 1st October 1995 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in former 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 former Article 48 of the Convention;
Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 29 June 1994, the applicant complained about the unfairness of a criminal proceeding before a Court of appeal where he had been sentenced in absentia and where his lawyer was not authorised to present his defense;
Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
Whereas at the 546th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of former Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 13 October 1995, 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 19 April 1996;
Whereas at the 567th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission's proposals, held by a decision adopted on 25 June 1996, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 30 000 French Francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 70 000 French Francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 100 000 French Francs, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay 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 the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 13 October 1995 and 25 June 1996, having regard to France's obligation under former 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 the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as the one found in this case (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)154 in the Poitrimol case);
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 21 November 1996, after the expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the total sum of 100 000 French Francs as just satisfaction, and that the default interest due was paid on 19 January 1998,
Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of France, and considering the decision taken at the 775th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (17 December 2001), that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case;
Authorise the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy