The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 54) 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 Ezelin case delivered on 26 April 1991 and
transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application against
France lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on
16 October 1985 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by
Mr Roland Ezelin, a French national, who complained that he had
been imposed a disciplinary sanction as an avocat because he had
not dissociated himself from a public demonstration in which
protests were made against judicial decisions and had refused to
give evidence to the investigating judge;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 6 April 1990;
Whereas in its judgment of 26 April 1991, the Court:
- held unanimously that it was unnecessary to make a
separate examination of the case under Article 10
(art. 10) of the Convention;
- held, by six votes to three, that there had been a
violation of Article 11 (art. 11);
- held, unanimously, that the judgment in itself
constituted sufficient just satisfaction as to the
alleged non-pecuniary damage;
- held, unanimously, that the respondent State was to
reimburse the applicant 40 000 French francs for costs
and expenses;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of
the Convention;
Having invited the Government of France to inform it of the
measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of
26 April 1991, having regard to its obligation under Article 53
(art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of France has
paid to the applicant on 6 April 1992 the sum provided for in the
judgment,
Declares that it has exercised its functions under
Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy