The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32
(art. 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 (art. 31)
of the Convention relating to the application lodged on
14 December 1987 by Mr P. against France
(Application No. 14669/89);
Whereas on 19 November 1992 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 (art. 32-1),
of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought
before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of
Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;
Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the
Commission on 1 April 1992 (final decision as to the
admissibility), the applicant complained of the excessive length
of certain criminal proceedings;
Whereas in its report adopted on 14 October 1992 the
Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been
a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the
Convention;
Whereas, at the 489th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held
on 8 March 1993, 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
(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a
violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), 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 9 July 1993;
Whereas the Government of France formulated supplementary
observations with regard to the Commission's proposals for just
satisfaction, which observations were transmitted to the Commission
on 4 January 1994 for any comments it might wish to make;
Whereas on 20 January 1994, the President of the Commission
informed the President of the Committee of Ministers that the
Commission had taken note of the observations of the French
Government but had no comments to make with regard to the question
raised therein;
Whereas, at the 517th meeting of the Deputies held on
20 September 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in
accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the
Convention, that the Government of France was to pay the applicant
as just satisfaction, within three months, 40 000 French francs in
respect of non-pecuniary damage and 27 000 French francs in respect
of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 67 000 French francs;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of
France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions
of 8 March 1993 and 20 September 1994, having regard to France's
obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), 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
12 May 1995 the Government of France paid the applicant the total
sum of 67 000 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 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;
Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the
Commission in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 37
Information provided by the Government of France
during the examination of the case of P.
by the Committee of Ministers
The report of the Commission has been diffused to the relevant
courts, according to a practise established by the Government of
France in similar cases. The government is of the opinion that
this practise will prevent the repetition of violations similar to
the one found in the present case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy