Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)161[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Aoulmi against France
(Application No. 50278/99, judgment of 17 January 2006, final on 17 April 2006)
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 the violation of the applicant’s right of individual petition due to the failure to comply with interim measures indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the context of the expulsion of an alien (violation of Article 34) (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;
Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
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)161
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Aoulmi against France
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a hindrance to the effective exercise of the applicant’s right to individual application (violation of Article 34).
In 1999, as the applicant referred alleged violations of Articles 3 and 8 to the Court, which might result from his expulsion to Algeria, the Court indicated interim measures to the respondent state pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, among them that the French authorities might not expell the applicant until the competent Chamber had rendered its decision. The respondent state did not comply with this measure. The European Court therefore considered that the applicant’s expulsion to Algeria had hampered the examination of his claims and had ultimately prevented the Court from protecting him against potential violations of the Convention.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
7 000 EUR
5 000 EUR
12 000 EUR
Paid on 15/11/2006
b) Individual measures
The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicant in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.
However, the Court dismissed the claims introduced by the applicant pursuant to Articles 3 and 6. The applicant argued that his expulsion to Algeria might be risky due to the unavailability of the required treatment for his hepatitis in Algeria, where he could not benefit from any social insurance, and to the "harki" activities of his father which made him fear relation by islamists. Although the Court was aware he was suffering from a serious disease, it held that, in the light of the information provided at the time when the case was still under examination, especially of the most recent information on the applicant’s health, it could not consider that the risk of the incompatibilty of the circumstances of his explusion to Algeria with Article 3 and 6 was sufficiently real. As to the arguments related to the story of his family as well as to the current situation in Algeria, the Court considered that the repercussions implied by these elements were too distant to hold that the applicant, who had bever been to Algeria and did not suggest that he was personally involved in political activities, might face treatment contrary to Article 3.
Eventually, concerning the applicant’s allegations under Article 8, the Court held that, despite the applicant’s strong personal relationship with France, the Court of appeal of Lyon could legitimately consider that, in the light of the behaviour of the applicant and the seriousness of the charges against him, a sentence to permanent expulsion from French territory was necessary in the interest of preventing disorder or crime. The measure was therefore proportional to the aim pursued.
II.General measures
The French authorities stated that, since the European Court’s judgment in the case of Mamatkulov and Askarov against Turkey (Application No. 46827/99 et 46951/99, judgment of 04/02/2005), they had been fully aware of the importance the Court attached to the enforcement of interim measures indicated. They indicated that the facts of the Aoulmi case took place prior to the adoption of this ruling, and that, since then, the French government had complied with each request from the Court to suspend enforcement of measures against applicants.
The European Court’s judgment was issued (together with a commentary referring to the Mamatkulov and Askarov judgment) in the legal information bulletin of the Ministry of the Interior (May/June 2006). This is disseminated through the intranet site of the Ministry which is accessible to all agents of the Ministry as well as to préfectures. The judgment has also been circulated to concerned authorities.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measures are necessary in this case except the payment of just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has accordingly fulfilled its obligations pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy