resolution DH (99) 712
Concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 21 January 1999
in the case of Fressoz and Roire against France
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 1999
at the 688th 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 final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Fressoz and Roire case delivered on 21 January 1999 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 29183/95) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 August 1995 under Article 25 of the unamended Convention by Mr Roger Fressoz and Mr Claude Roire, two French nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that their conviction by a court of appeal, confirmed by the Cour de cassation, for handling the fruits of a breach of professional confidence in that they had published photocopies of the tax assessments of the head of a company obtained through a breach of professional confidence by a third person had constituted a breach of freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, as well as a breach of the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 16 March 1998 and by the governmenton 15 May 1998;
Whereas in its judgment of 21 January 1999 the Court, unanimously:
- dismissed the government’s preliminary objection
- held that there had been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention;
- held that no separate issue arose under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months, 10 001 French francs in respect of pecuniary damage and 60 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 3.36% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- held that the present judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any other damage;
- dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 21 January 1999, 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 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 15 April 1999, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sum provided for in the judgment of 21 January 1999,
Declares, after having taken note of 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 DH (99) 712
Information provided by the Government of France
during the examination of the Fressoz et Roire case
by the Committee of Ministers
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been sent out to the authorities directly concerned and published in La semaine juridique dated 30 June 1999 and in the Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme No. 39, dated 1 July 1999; it may also be consulted on the website Légifrance (www.legifrance.gouv.fr).
Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice has circulated a memorandum to all courts to draw their attention to the solution adopted in this case by the European Court.
The government consider that, given the status of the Convention and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in French domestic law (see, inter alia, Cass. Soc. 14 January 1999 Bozkurt, Cass. Civ. 28 April 1998 M. G., Cass. Com. Ferreira 29 April 1997 and Cass. Crim. Landry 6 May 1997), French courts will henceforth interpret the offence of handling the fruits of a breach of professional confidence, in cases concerning journalists, in conformity with the European Court’s case-law.
The government is of the opinion that there is therefore no risk of a repeat of the breach of the Convention found in the present case and that it has thus fulfilled its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy