RESOLUTION DH (97) 126
HUMAN RIGHTS
APPLICATION No. 20757/92
O. G. AGAINST FRANCE
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 January 1997
at the 582nd 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 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 17 July 1992 by Ms O. G. against France (Application No. 20757/92);
Whereas on 14 October 1994 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 her application, declared admissible by the Commission on 6 April 1994, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before civil and administrative courts;
Whereas in its report, adopted on 31 August 1994, the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
Whereas at the 527th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 7 February 1995, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, 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 26 May 1995;
Whereas at the 542nd meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held, by a decision adopted on 11 September 1995, 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, 20 000 French francs for all damages;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 7 February 1995 and 11 September 1995, 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 gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 18 March 1996, the Government of France paid the applicant the total sum of 20 000 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 (97) 126
Information provided by the Government of France
during the examination of the case of O. G.
by the Committee of Ministers
As regards the length of proceedings before administrative courts, the Government of France recalled that measures had already been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation, such as found in the present case, notably through the setting up of administrative courts of appeal, the redefinition of the Conseil d'Etat's competencies, and the increase of personnel and equipment in order to speed up those proceedings (see Resolution DH (95) 254 in the case of Beaumartin against France).
As regards the length of proceedings before civil courts, the report of the Commission has been distributed to the competent courts, according to a practice established by the Government of France in similar cases.
The government is of the opinion that these measures will prevent any repetition of violations similar to that found in the present case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy