COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
RESOLUTION DH (98) 5
HUMAN RIGHTS
APPLICATION No. 18526/91
J.-C.C. AGAINST FRANCE
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 February 1998
at the 618th 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 23 January 1996, by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 10 June 1991 by Mr J.-C.C. against France (Application No. 18526/91);
Whereas on 16 February 1996 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, as declared admissible by the Commission on 30 November 1994, the applicant complained that his detention had not been lawful, that a speedily decision had not been taken on the lawfulness of his detention, of the lack of compensation in this context and of a violation of his right to respect for family life;
Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, as regards compensation for the unlawful detention; by eleven votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, as regards absence of a speedy decision as provided by Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention; and by eight votes to five, that there had been no violation of Article 8, of the Convention;
Whereas, at the 571st 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 agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 13 September 1996, that there had been in this case a violation no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention; that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention; that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, as regards compensation for the unlawful detention; that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, as regards absence of a speedy decision as provided by Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention; that there had been no violation of Article 8, 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 30 April 1997;
Whereas, at the 597th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held, by a decision adopted on 11 July 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, the sum of 30 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the sum of 13 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 43 000 French francs and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay (in accordance with the decision adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 599th meeting (17 September 1997) on the general principles regarding the payment of default interest) 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 13 September 1996 and 11 July 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 gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee’s decisions; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 19 August 1997, within the time-limit set, the Government of France paid the applicant the total sum of 43 000 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.
Appendix to Resolution DH (98) 5
Information provided by the Government of France
during the examination of the case of J.-C.C.
by the Committee of Ministers
The French Government stated that steps have been taken in terms of both structure and means so as to reduce the length of proceedings. By the same token, the Commission’s report and the Committee of Ministers’ decisions have been transmitted to the authorities directly concerned in order to enable them to take them into account when organising their procedures.
Moreover, the Government noted that the combined application of the dispositions of the Judicial Code (Article L781-1) and Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention have led the national courts to condemn the State on the ground of excessive length of judicial proceedings (Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) of Paris, 6 July 1994 - De Jeager; TGI of Paris, 30 April 1997 - CGS). By taking into account the status of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in French law it is possible to extend the case-law concerning procedures which fall under Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention to procedures concerning psychiatric confinement.
The Government is of the opinion that the extension of this case-law could indirectly encourage courts to accelerate proceedings but should not overshadow other measures taken with the same objective.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy