CHAUFOUR AGAINST FRANCE

 RESOLUTION DH (97) 382

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION No. 22153/93

CHAUFOUR AGAINST FRANCE

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 September 1997

at the 599th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the report drawn up on 28 June 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention, relating to the application lodged on 2 April 1993 by Mr Hubert Chaufour against France (Application No. 22153/93);

Whereas on 5 September 1995 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 of the Convention;

Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 17 January 1995, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts;

Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

Whereas, at the 556th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by decision adopted on 9 February 1996, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 25 September 1996;

Whereas, at the 582nd meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission's proposals, held, by decision adopted on 28 January 1997, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of France was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 90 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 20 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 110 000 French francs and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 9 February 1996 and 28 January 1997, having regard to France's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of France accordingly recalled that measures had been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation found in the present case, notably through the setting up of administrative courts of appeal, the redefinition of the competences of the "Conseil d'Etat" and the increase of personnel and means in order to speed up the administrative proceedings (see Resolution DH (95) 254 in the case of Beaumartin against France), and that the Commission's report as well as the Committee of Ministers' decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 18 March 1997, within the time-limit set, the Government of France paid the applicant the total sum of 110 000 French francs as just satisfaction,

Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case;

Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy