Resolution ResDH(2003)58
Human Rights
Application No. 15091/89
L.D. against France
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 April 2003
at the 834th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former 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 11 January 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with former Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 7 April 1989 by a French-Italian national, Mr L.D., against France;
Whereas on 17 March 1994 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in former 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 former Article 48 of the Convention;
Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 2 December 1992, the applicant complained of the excessive length of his detention on remand;
Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention;
Whereas at the 517th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of former Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 20 September 1994, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, 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 3 March 1995;
Whereas at the 633rd meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 11 June 1998, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 90 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and 20 248 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 110 248 French francs, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay 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 the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 20 September 1994 and 11 June 1998, having regard to France’s obligation under former 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 the respondent state has indicated that the Court’s judgment was transmitted to the authorities directly concerned and recalled that measures had been taken to avoid further similar violation to that found in the present case, through the adoption of Law No. 2000-516 of 15 June 2000 strengthening the protection of the presumption of innocence and the rights of victims, which entered into force on 16 June 2000 and was completed by the laws of 4 March 2002 and 9 September 2002 (see Resolution ResDH(2003)50 in the case of Muller against France);
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 31 July 1998, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the total sum of 110 248 French francs as just satisfaction,
Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under former 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