Resolution ResDH(2001)164
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 22 June 2000 (final on 19 October 2000)
in the case of Coëme and others against Belgium
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 December 2001
at the 775th 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, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Coëme and others case delivered on 22 June 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the judgment of the Court became final on 19 October 2000 since, at this date, the government of the respondent state and the applicant were informed that their request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber had been dismissed;
Recalling that the case originated in five applications (Nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96) against Belgium, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights respectively on 23 July 1996, 1 August 1996, 5 August 1996, 8 August 1996 and 31 July 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Guy Coëme, Mr Jean Louis Mazy, Mr Jean-Louis Stalport, Mr Auguste Merry Hermanus and Mr Camille Javeau, five Belgian nationals, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning:
- the lack of implementing legislation governing the procedure for examining the merits of the proceedings against ministers pursuant to section 103 of the Constitution and the difficulties which ensue for the applicants’ defence,
- the application of section 21 of the law of 17 April 1978, as modified by under former Article 25 of the law of 24 December 1993,
- the sending of the four applicant, who had never exercised ministerial responsibility before the Cour de cassation,
- the refusal of the Cour de cassation to submit the preliminary questions concerning the connection rule and extension of the limitation period to the Administrative Jurisdiction and Procedure Court,
- the fact that the Cour de cassation had withheld certain statements made by Mr Stalport during his hearing on 16 March 1994, as a witness, as if they constituted a confession,
- the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings against Mr Hermanus,
- to the fact that the Cour de cassation would be structurally and traditionally under the influence of the prosecution.
Recalling that the third applicant, Mr Jean-Louis Stalport died in the course of the proceedings and that his heirs, his wife and his daughters, have expressed the wish to continue the proceedings;
Whereas in its judgment of 22 June 2000 the Court:
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Mr Coëme, in that the lack of implementing legislation governing the procedure for the trial of ministers under Article 103 of the Constitution had deprived him of a fair trial;
- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaints raised on that account under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 6 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in that the Court of Cassation had not been a tribunal "established by law" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention to try Mr Mazy, Mr Stalport, Mr Hermanus and Mr Javeau;
- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint raised on that account under Article 14 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint of Mr Mazy, Mr Stalport, Mr Hermanus and Mr Javeau that no law on procedure had been enacted pursuant to Article 103 of the Constitution;
- held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the Court of Cassation’s refusal to submit the preliminary questions concerning the connection rule and extension of the limitation period to the Administrative Jurisdiction and Procedure Court;
- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 concerning the refusal to submit the preliminary questions to the Administrative Jurisdiction and Procedure Court;
- held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the allegation that the Court of Cassation was not an independent and impartial tribunal;
- held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the interview with Mr Stalport;
- held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the length of the criminal proceedings against Mr Hermanus;
- held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that the respondent State was to pay, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, 300 000 Belgian francs, to Mr Mazy, to Mr Hermanus, to Mr Javeau and to the heirs of Mr Stalport;
- held, unanimously, that the respondent State was to pay, within the same time-limit of three months, for costs and expenses, 400 000 Belgium francs to Mr Coëme, and 760 000 Belgian francs to Mr Mazy, to Mr Hermanus, and to Mr Javeau and to the heirs of Mr Stalport;
- held, unanimously, that simple interest at an annual rate of 7% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the applicants’ 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 22 June 2000, having regard to Belgium’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 recalled that, after the facts of the present case and before the Court had delivered its judgment, the legislation had been modified (see §§ 68 and 69, page 30 of the judgment) and that there is no risk of repetition of the violations found;
Whereas the government of the respondent state indicated that the Court’s judgment in French, as well as a translation in Dutch and in German had been published on the Internet site of the Belgian Ministry of Justice (http : //www.just.fgov.be) and sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on 18 and 19 January 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 22 June 2000,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Belgium, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy