Resolution ResDH(2006)52
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 13 February 2003 (final on 13 May 2003)
in the case of Chevrol against France
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 November 2006,
at the 976th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Chevrol case delivered on 13 February 2003 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 49636/99) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 March 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Yamina Chevrol, a French national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning the interference of the executive power in the jurisdictional competences of the Conseil d'Etat, because this Court, seised of an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision taken by the medical professional body to refuse her (at the relevant time) to practice medicine in France, held itself to be bound by the negative opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs with regard to the applicability of the international treaty at issue in the case (considering the assessment of the reciprocity condition contained in Article 55 of the Constitution which provides that treaties or agreements duly ratified or approved have a higher degree of authority than domestic laws, provided the other party applies the same rule);
Whereas in its judgment of 13 February 2003 the Court:
- held, by six votes to one, that the applicant could claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention;
- held, by six votes to one, that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention was applicable in the instant case;
- held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in that the applicant's case was not heard by a “tribunal” having full jurisdiction;
- held, by six votes to one, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 17 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed unanimously the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 13 February 2003, having regard to France's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the possibilities at the applicant's disposal to erase, as far as possible, the consequences of the violation and about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 23 May 2003, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 13 February 2003,
Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)52
Information provided by the Government of France
during the examination of the Chevrol case
by the Committee of Ministers
Individual measures
During the proceedings before the European Court, the applicant was authorised to practice medicine in France for 1997 and her name was placed on the roll of the professional body (Ministerial Decree of 22 January 1999, published in the Journal official de la République française on 30 January 1999) (§20 of the judgment).
Nevertheless, the Court did not consider that this was sufficient to motivate a finding divesting the applicant of her status of “victim” and pursued its examination of the case, finally deciding that there had been a violation of the Convention.
Following the Court's judgment, the applicant applied requested the Conseil d'Etat to re-examine the decision it had taken in 1995 following the appeal lodged at that time to challenge the lawfulness of the refusal to authorise her to practice medicine. This request was dismissed by the Conseil d'Etat by decision of 11 February 2004.
However, the means used by the applicant in order to erase, as far as possible, the consequences of the violation was neither the only one, nor the most opportune.
The applicant could seise the administrative authorities of her claims, in particular for compensation, for the period at issue. In these circumstances, the administrative authorities would have to assess once again the applicability of the relevant international agreement in domestic law and to adopt a new decision which would be subject tot appeal before the administrative courts. As these courts apply the Convention and the European Court's case-law directly; hence, there is no reason to doubt that, if need be, they would take this judgment into account in order to erase, as far as possible, the negative consequences of the violation of the Convention.
General measures
The European Court's judgment was immediately sent to the Conseil d'Etat (20 February 2003). In view of the fact that the Conseil d'Etat directly applies the Convention and the European Court's case-law, as confirmed by its own recent case-law (see among numerous examples the judgment of 30 December 2003, Mr. Beausoleil, Ms Richard – no251120), there is no reason to doubt that it will draw all inferences from this judgment of the European Court judgment with regard to its own jurisprudential practice in order to avoid this kind of violation.
Furthermore, the general public has also been informed of the requirements of the Convention as they emerge from this judgment, as it has been published and commented on in several widely disseminated law journals and in the “Actualité européenne” section of the “Legifrance” database ().
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy