Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)57[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Dumont-Maliverg against France
(Applications Nos. 57547/00, 68591/01, judgment of 31 May 2005, final on 31 August 2005)
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 in this case, transmitted by the Court once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand (violation of Article 5, paragraph 3) (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;
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(2009)57
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Dumont-Maliverg against France
Introductory case summary
This case concerns the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand (from 1997 to 2001; more than 4 years and 1 month) (violation of Article 5 paragraph 3).
The European Court noted that there had been evidence against the applicant and that the judicial investigating authorities had consistently relied on the same grounds when remanding him in custody or refusing his applications for bail. One of these had been the risk of serious prejudice to public order. In the Court's view, the authorities had never sufficiently established the existence of such a risk as a valid ground for the applicant's detention on remand. As to the alleged risk of the applicant's re-offending or putting pressure on the victims, the Court considered that in the context in which the offences had been committed, credible alternatives to detaining the applicant had been available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lastly, the Court noted that the risk of the applicant's absconding had been referred to in very general terms and had not been substantiated.
I.Individual measures
The applicant is no longer detained on remand: he was convicted in 2002 by a final judgment
As to the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, the Court considered it sufficiently redressed by the finding of a violation of the Convention.
II.General measures
This case presents similarities to that of Muller (final Resolution ResDH(2003)50), closed following the adoption of legislative measures, in particular those limiting the conditions and the length of detention on remand, the exceptional character of which has been reaffirmed (Law No. 2000-516 of 15/06/2000 “reinforcing the protection of the presumption of innocence and the rights of victims”).
In addition, in view of the fact that the competent authorities apply the Convention directly, measures have been taken to draw their attention to this case, so as to ensure that they will take it into account in practice. A summary of the judgment was published in the Cour de cassation Information Bulletin No. 623 of 15/07/2005 (disseminated inter alia to the judicial investigating authorities), as well as in « La Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme – 2006 - Arrêts concernant la France et leurs commentaires » - a publication of the European Law Observatory (Observatoire de Droit Européen) available on the Internet site of the Cour de cassation. Finally, the judgment was sent to the Prosecutor General of the Besançon Court of Appeal, which was the court concerned by the proceedings at issue.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case have been remedied as far as possible, and that the measures taken will prevent new, similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 April 2009 at the 1051st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy