Resolution DH (2000) 60
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 29 September 1999 (final on 29 December 1999)
in the case of Serre against France
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 May 2000
at the 709th 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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Serre case delivered on 29 September 1999 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Article 44 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 29718/96) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 December 1995 under previous Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Jean-Pierre Serre, a French national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the absence of public hearings before the jurisdictional organs of professional associations (regional disciplinary Chamber and superior disciplinary Chamber of the association of veterinarians);
Whereas in its judgment of 29 September 1999 the Court :
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention;
- held, by six votes to one, that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months 10 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 65 830 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 3.47 % would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed, unanimously, 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 29 September 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 recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as the one found in this case, notably through the acceptance by the Conseil d'Etat, since its Maubleu judgment of 14 February 1996, of the applicability of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention to ordinal disciplinary jurisdictions (see notably the Resolutions DH (97) 342 adopted in the case of Fouquet Raymond against France and DH (97) 352 adopted in the case of Diennet against France), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on 22 November 1999, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 29 September 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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy