resolution DH (99) 443
HUMAN RIGHTS
APPLICATION No. 20265/92
R. B. AGAINST FRANCE
(Adopted by the Committee Ministers on 15 July 1999
at the 677th 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 31 August 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 14 April 1992 by a French national, Mr R. B., against France;
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 his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 12 January 1994, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations 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 527th 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 a decision adopted on 6 February 1995, 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 7 July 1995;
Whereas at the 654th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 25 Januay 1999, in accordance with 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, 30 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 3 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 33 000 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 6 February 1995 and 25 January 1999, 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 the respondent State accordingly recalled that measures had already been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation found in this 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) and indicated that the Commission's report had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 26 March 1999, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicant the total sum of 33 000 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 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