Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)12[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
in the case of Raffi against France and thirty other cases
(see Appendix) concerning the excessive length of
certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts
and the lack of an effective remedy
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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts and the lack of an effective remedy (violations of Articles 6, paragraph 1, and 13);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with France's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
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 applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the 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
- 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 these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)12
Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the
case of Raffi against France and thirty other cases concerning the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or
the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts
and the lack of an effective remedy
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of “criminal” charges before the administrative courts, and/or the lack of an effective remedy to complain about it (violations or Article 6, paragraph 1, and/or of Article 13) – for details on the violations, see the table below.
The proceedings at issue were terminated when the European Court delivered its judgments in these cases, except in five cases (Guez, Colin, SCI Boumois, Favre, Oberling).
The Court recalled, in five judgments, that depending on what is at stake for the applicants, the authorities shall be particularly diligent in dealing with judicial proceedings (in particular labour disputes or proceedings concerning the granting of a pension ; cases of Conus, Lechelle, Colin, Beloeil and Le Bechennec).
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Violations of Article 6, paragraph 1
Name and application number
Non pecuniary damage
Pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
RAFFI - 11760/02
2 500 euros
500 euros
3 000 euros
Paid on 19/10/2006
COUDRIER - 51442/99
15 000 euros
15 000 euros
Paid on 18/08/2004 and 11/03/2005, plus interest
DAGOT - 55084/00
3 500 euros
3 500 euros
Paid on 10/12/2004
REGA - 55704/00
8 500 euros
8 500 euros
Paid on 14/06/2005[2]
CONUS - 55763/00
5 500 euros
400 euros
5 900 euros
Paid on 03/03/2006
Name and application number
Non pecuniary damage
Pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
ABRIBAT and other - 60392/00
5 000 euros
5 000 euros
Paid on 24/06/2004, plus interest
DUKMEDJIAN - 60495/00
12 000 euros
1 000 euros
13 000 euros
Paid on 12/05/2006
FATTELL - 60504/00
8 000 euros
1 823 euros
9 823 euros
Paid on 15/06/2005
LECHOISNE et autres - 61173/00
14 000 euros jointly to the applicants
14 000 euros
Paid on 26/11/2003 and 01/12/2003
LECHELLE - 65786/01
5 000 euros
2 200 euros
7 200 euros
Paid on 27/10/2004
FAIVRE - 69825/01
7 000 euros
7 000 euros
Paid on 24/05/2004
GUEZ - 70034/01
8 000 euros
5 588 euros
13 588 euros
Paid on 30/08/2005
COLIN - 75866/01
8 000 euros
8 000 euros
Paid on 08/11/2005
CONSORTS DEMIR - 3041/02
3 000 euros to each of the ten applicants
2 400 euros jointly
32 400 euros
Paid on 28/07/2006
BELOEIL - 4094/02
5 200 euros for non pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
5 200 euros
Paid on 17/12/2004 and 04/03/2005
GARDEDIEU - 8103/02
-
-
-
-
LE CALVEZ No. 2 - 18836/02
3 000 euros
500 euros
3 500 euros
Paid on 02/05/2007
ALAGIA and NUSBAUM - 26160/02
5 000 euros
5 000 euros
Paid on 03/05/2006
Name and application number
Non pecuniary damage
Pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
LE BECHENNEC - 28738/02
2 500 euros
1 500 euros
4 000 euros
Paid on 02/08/2006
MAILLARD - 35009/02
8 500 euros
8 500 euros
Paid on 03/03/2006
Violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, and of Article 13
Name and application number
Non pecuniary damage
Pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
SCI BOUMOIS - 55007/00
3 000 euros
2 000 euros
5 000 euros
Paid on 01/10/2003
BOUILLY No. 2 - 57115/00
3 500 euros
1 000 euros
4 500 euros
Paid on 01/10/2003
SEIDEL No. 2 - 60955/00
6 000 euros
1 000 euros
7 000 euros
Paid on 01/10/2003
FAVRE - 72313/01
8 000 euros
1 000 euros
9 000 euros
Paid on 30/06/2004
DUHAMEL - 15110/02
6 500 euros
500 euros
7 000 euros
Paid on 28/07/2006
DONNADIEU No. 2 - 19249/02
3 000 euros
500 euros
3 500 euros
Paid on 15/05/2006
BARILLON - 22897/02
4 000 euros
500 euros
4 500 euros
Paid on 19/06/2006
OBERLING - 31520/02
6 000 euros
500 euros
6 500 euros
Paid on 04/08/2006
BARILLON - 32929/02
3 000 euros
500 euros
3 500 euros
Paid on 19/06/2006
BITTON No. 2 - 41828/02
6 000 euros
500 euros
6 500 euros
Paid on 24/07/2006
Violation of Article 13
Name and application number
Non pecuniary damage
Pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
BITTON No. 1 - 22992/02
1 000 euros
500 euros
1 500 euros
Paid on 02/05/2007
b) Individual measures
In order to remedy, as far as possible, the consequences of the violations for the applicants (restitutio in integrum) in the five cases where the proceedings were still pending when the Court delivered its judgments, the Committee asked for the proceedings at issue to be accelerated.
These proceedings have now been ended:
- in the Guez case: the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in 2005; no appeal in cassation against this judgment was brought before the Conseil d'Etat;
- in the Colin case: these proceedings ended by final decisions delivered by the Conseil d'Etat;
- in the SCI Boumois case: in the proceedings concerned by the judgment of the Court (the judgment delivered on 20 June 2000 by the Nantes Administrative Court of Appeal quashed), the Conseil d'Etat delivered its judgment on 6 December 2002;
- in the Favre case: the proceedings were ended by a judgment of the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal in 2004; no appeal in cassation against this judgment was brought before the Conseil d'Etat;
- in the Oberling case: both cases pending before the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal were ended by two judgments delivered on 28 November 2005; no appeals in cassation against these judgments were brought before the Conseil d'Etat.
II.General measures
1) Excessive length of proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1)
First, these cases present similarities with another group of cases, the examination of which was closed by Resolution ResDH(2005)63, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 July 2005, at the 933rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies. Several general measures adopted by the French authorities are presented in detail in this Resolution, in particular the adoption of Law No. 2002-1138 of 09/09/2002 (recruitment of staff, creation of new courts and budgetary resources) and of procedural measures to enable administrative courts both to reduce their backlogs more quickly and reduce the flow of incoming cases.
Second, following, complementary, measures have been adopted more recently.
Article R 112-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice, as worded following a Decree of 09/12/2005, provides that any party considering that proceedings before an administrative tribunal or court of appeal are excessively lengthy may seise the Head of the Standing Inspectorate of Administrative Courts (mission permanente d'inspection des juridictions administratives), who may make recommendations to redress the situation.
The Head of the Standing Inspectorate also receives copies of all administrative or judicial decisions allocating compensation for damages caused by the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts. If he considers it appropriate, he may bring any shortcoming in the provision of justice to the attention to the attention of court presidents.
As an example, in the Lechelle case, in view of the fact that the Court stressed that the authorities should have been particularly diligent, the Court's judgment was transmitted to the Head of the Standing Inspectorate to be disseminated to all authorities (in particular judicial) concerned.
Finally, concerning the particular diligence required by the Court for labour disputes among others, excerpts from the Le Bechennec judgment were published, together with a commentary, in a widely-read national legal journal. This publication has also been mentioned in the Court of Cassation's information bulletin (Bulletin d'information de la Cour de cassation, BICC) No. 645 of 01/08/2006. The Administrative and Labour Courts, which are competent for labour disputes and grant direct effect to the Convention and the Court's case-law, have all the elements to take this requirement of particular diligence into account. Furthermore, the general public has also been informed of the requirements of the Convention.
2) Effective remedy (violations of Article 13)
Such an effective remedy now exists; it has been first recognized in case-law and then inserted in the law (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)10, adopted in the case of Lutz against France (application No. 48215/99)).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures taken have, as far as possible, remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases. It considers also that all the measures taken, including those already presented in Final Resolution ResDH(2005)63, show the efforts made to avoid excessive length of proceedings before Administrative Courts; the government will continue to make all the necessary efforts to avoid new violations similar to those found in these cases. The government concludes that it has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
[2] Negligible delay ; applicant’s waiver of the interest presumed.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy