Resolution ResDH(2002)12
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 18 July 2000 (final on 18 October 2000)
in the case of S.M. 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 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 S.M. case delivered on 18 July 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 41453/98) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 February 1998 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms S.M., a French national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that the length of certain civil proceedings before the administrative courts was excessive;
Whereas in its judgment of 18 July 2000 the Court, unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 40 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and that simple interest at an annual rate of 2.74% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 18 July 2000, 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 indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on 22 November 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 18 July 2000,
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