Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)125[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Lilly France against France
(Application No. 53892/00, judgment of 14 October 2003, final on 14 January 2004)
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 transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a breach of the right to a fair trial in proceedings before the Commercial Division of the Cour de Cassation, due to the failure to communicate to the applicant company of the first part the reporting counsellor’s report, containing the statement of facts, proceedings and grounds of appeal (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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;
Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix);
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), and in view of its decision taken in the Lilly France case at the 1065th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (15 September 2009), 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(2010)125
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Lilly France against France
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a breach of the right to a fair trial during proceedings related to criminal charges against the applicant, a pharmaceutical company before the Commercial Division of the Cour de Cassation. The European Court found a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention, due to the failure to communicate to the applicant company of the first part of the reporting counsellor’s report, containing the statement of facts, proceedings and grounds of appeal (the second part, containing his legal analysis of the case and his opinion on the merits of the appeal, could be kept confidential).
As a result of these proceedings, the applicant company was sentenced to a pecuniary sanction on the ground of anti-competitive practice. Its appeal to the Cour de Cassation was dismissed on 15/06/1999.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
-
6,434.87 euros
6,434.87 euros
Paid on 22/12/2005
b) Individual measures
The European Court rejected the company’s claims for refund of the fine imposed and the costs of publication of the judgment, considering there were no causality between the violation and the alleged prejudice of the applicant company. Nor was it clear from the facts that the failure to communicate the statement of facts, proceedings and grounds of appeal written by the reporting judge could have had any influence whatsoever on the outcome of the proceedings. No other individual measure was therefore considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
Connections can be made between this case and the case of Slimane-Kaïd No. 2 (judgment of 27/11/2003, Resolution CM/ResDH (2008)13, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies), as well as the Fontaine and Bertin case (No. 38410/97). In this context, the government stated that the reporting counsellor’s report (the document which establishes the legal content of the case) is now communicated with the file to the public prosecutor as to the parties; on the other hand, his opinion on the decision to be adopted and the draft judgments suggested to the deliberation of the Cour de Cassation are communicated neither to the attorneys general nor to the parties.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measures are necessary in this case, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has accordingly fulfilled its obligations pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy