Resolution ResDH(2002)2
concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
of 21 February 1997 and 2 September 1998
in the case of Guillemin against France
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 March 2002
at the 783rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Guillemin case delivered on 21 February 1997 and 2 September 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 19632/92) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 November 1992 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Adrienne Guillemin, a French national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints concerning the excessive length of proceedings instituted with a view to the responsible contesting the expropriation and to obtaining compensation for the expropriation of certain lands, as well as the municipality’s failure to comply with judicial decisions annulling the expropriation measures;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 8 December 1995;
Whereas in its judgment of 21 February 1997 the Court unanimously held in particular:
- that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention due to the excessive length of the proceedings instituted with a view to contesting the expropriation and to obtaining compensation;
- that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to the continuous lack of compensation;
- that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 250 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 60 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 6.65% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
Whereas in its judgment of 2 September 1998 the Court unanimously:
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 60 000 French francs for pecuniary damage and 30 000 French francs for lawyer’s fees;
- held 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.
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11 applicable analogy;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments of 21 February 1997 and 2 September 1998, having regard to France’s obligation under former Article 53 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 to remedy the applicant’s situation and to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution);
Having satisfied itself that on 7 April 1997, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 21 February 1997; that on 3 March 1999, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 2 September 1998 and that the default interest due, namely 753.92 French francs, was paid on 24 June 1999,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2002)2
Information provided by the Government of France
during the examination of the Guillemin case
by the Committee of Ministers
The impugned proceedings, which were pending at the time when the European Court delivered its judgments, were concluded by the rejection of the applicant’s appeal by the Court of Cassation (decision of 27 April 2000). The decision of the Court of Appeal on compensation (see §§21-22 of the judgment of the European Court (Article 50) of 2 September 1998) thus became final and enforceable, and the applicant consequently received compensation. The consequences for the applicant of the violations found were therefore erased.
As regards general measures, the Government indicated that the Court’s decisions in this case had quickly received wide publicity within legal profession. The judgment on the merits of 21 February 1997 was notably published with comments in Actualité juridique du droit administratif (20 April 1997), a journal widely distributed in legal circles. This publicity allowed the attention of the relevant authorities to be drawn to the problems related to the length of the expropriation procedures and the Ministry of Justice started considering a draft global reform of the expropriation code.
Although this draft has not yet been finalised, the Government considers that the general measures adopted so far satisfy the requirements of the Guillemin judgment which, while showing some insufficiencies, does not lead to the conclusion that a global reform of the law of expropriation needs to be undertaken immediately.
In view of the foregoing, the Government is of the opinion that France has complied with its obligation under article 46, paragraph 1 (former Article 53) of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy