Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)39[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
in 10 cases concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings
against France
(see details of the cases in Appendix )
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings before criminal courts (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with France's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfactions provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing, similar violations;
Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix),
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)39
Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 10 cases concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings against France
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the excessive length of several sets of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1), which took place between 1988 and 2005[2].
In most of these cases, the Court underlined in particular the excessive length of the pre-trial investigation.
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Case and application No.
Date of judgment
Final on
Non-pecuniary damage
Pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Date of payment
BARRILLOT Marcel
49533/99
29/04/03
29/07/03
10 000 €
48 780 €
2 500 €
14/11/03 + interests
Z
49627/99
30/09/03
30/12/03
9 000 €
-
-
18/03/04
BENMEZIANE Bachir
51803/99
03/06/03
03/09/03
6 500 €
-
-
12/12/03
+ interests
ETCHEVESTE Joseph and BIDART Filipe
44797/98
21/03/02
21/06/02
21 400 €
-
3 677 €
02/10/02[3]
GUIRAUD Antoine
64174/00
29/03/05
29/06/05
10 000 €
-
500 €
12/09/05
MOUESCA Jean-Gabriel
52189/99
03/06/03
03/09/03
1 500 €
-
2 500 €
12/01/04 + interests
RABLAT Adrien
49285/99
29/04/03
24/09/03
4 000 €
-
551 €
12/01/04 + interests
ROUILLE Alain
50268/99
06/01/04
06/04/04
4 000 €
-
-
11/06/04
SLIMANE-
KAID no3
45130/98
06/04/04
10/11/04
8 000 €
-
1500 €
27/10/04
SUBIALI André
65372/01
14/09/04
14/12/04
15 000 €
-
5 000 €
15/03/05[4]
b) Individual measures
All the proceedings had ended when the Court delivered its judgments, except in the Subiali case. In this case, the authorities confirmed that the proceedings at issue had been closed by a judgment of the Colmar Court of Appeal which became final in January 2005.
II.General measures
1) Measures taken to avoid the excessive length of criminal proceedings
a. Measures taken to avoid the excessive length of criminal proceedings as a whole
The five-year orientation and programming law for Justice (loi quinquennale d'orientation et de programmation pour la justice, LOPJ) was adopted on 9 September 2002, with several objectives, principally to improve the effectiveness of justice in particular by reducing the length of civil and criminal cases.
First, this requires a large increase in court staff. In this respect, it is recalled that between 1998 and 2002 more than 2400 new posts had already been created in the judicial services. The LOPJ amplified this trend, as 4450 supplementary posts have been planned by 2007 (950 magistrates and 3500 state employees and agents of the judicial services). In 2004 only, 709 additional posts, including 150 magistrates and 380 court clerks were created. This should result in a marked reduction of the time taken by courts to deliver judgments, in civil as well as in criminal cases, and the absorption of backlogs. It is also worth noting that the rate of recruitment of magistrates has considerably increased in recent years, exceeding 300 posts a year. The trend is similar for clerks of court and senior clerks of court.
The financial means have also been reinforced (by more than 11%. for 2004 and 2005).
Moreover, “objective-setting contracts” were signed with certain pilot sites (Douai and Aix-en-Provence Courts of Appeal). In return for additional staff and financial means, the courts have undertaken to reduce considerably the time taken to deliver judgments. The pilot sites achieved positive results in 2003: for example in Douai, 23 staff were recruited, including 11 magistrates. The court's productivity increased by 44%, the backlog decreased by 17% and the time taken to deliver judgments was reduced by 1,7 months. In Aix, 27 new staff were brought in (15 magistrates), productivity increased by 8%, the backlog was reduced by 10,84% and the time taken to deliver judgments was reduced by 2 months (Source: “Key figures of justice”, Internet site of the Ministry of Justice). Such “objective-setting contracts” have been generalised to all appeal courts from 1 January 2006.
In addition, new three-monthly statistics are now compiled in order to identify any anomaly as quickly as possible. These precise figures, now available 5 to 6 weeks after the end of each quarter (period of reference), include the number of new cases, the number of closed cases, the backlog of cases at the beginning of the period and the average time taken by the closed cases.
b. Measures taken to avoid the excessive length of the pre-trial investigation stage in particular
On 15 June 2000, Law No. 2000-516 was adopted, modifying certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning judicial inquiries on criminal issues (articles 89-1, 116, 175-1, 175-2, 207-1 and 221-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
These judicial inquiries are subjected to a proceedings schedule and new rights have been granted to the parties (indicted persons, “témoins assistés”, i.e. persons who have not been indicted on account of the inadequacy of the evidence against them but who benefit from certain procedural rights, and civil party, i.e. third persons associated in criminal proceedings for damages) in order to avoid extension of the proceedings.
Henceforth, Article 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if the investigating magistrate feels that the expected time for the completion of the investigation is less than a year in the case of a misdemeanour or eighteen months in the case of a felony, the investigating magistrate informs the person of this expected time. He also advises that at the expiry of this time limit, he/she will be able to request the closure of the proceedings, pursuant to the provisions of Article 175-1. If the investigating magistrate feels that the expected time for the completion of the investigation is superior to that, he indicates to the person that he/she can request the closure of the proceedings at the end of a year in the case of a misdemeanour, or eighteen months in the case of a felony.
According to Article 175-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the request to close the investigation may also be made when no investigating act has been carried out for a period of four months.
According to the same article, when the person under judicial examination asks the investigating magistrate, at the expiry of this period of four months, to bring the case before the trial court or to declare that there is no case to answer, the investigating magistrate must answer this request within a month of receiving it.
If the investigating magistrate declares, in a reasoned decision, that there are grounds for seeking further information, or if the judge has failed to rule within the allotted month, the person under judicial examination may transfer the case to the president of the investigating chamber. Seising the court in such a way must be done within the five days of notification of the magistrate's decision, or at the end of a one-month time limit.
Where the investigating magistrate has declared that he is continuing with his investigation, a new application may be made at the end of a six month period.
Moreover, according to Article 175-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the length of the investigation must not exceed a reasonable length of time, with consideration to the seriousness of the charges brought against the person under judicial examination, the complexity of the investigations needed to establish the truth, and the exercise of the rights of the defence. If, two years after the investigation was opened, it has not been concluded, the investigating magistrate delivers a reasoned judgment, with reference to the criteria provided for in the previous paragraph, explaining the reasons for the length of the proceedings, including indications justifying the continuation of the investigation and specifying the prospects for completion. This ruling is communicated to the president of the investigating chamber, who can, if he requests it, transfer the case to this court, in accordance with the provisions of article 221-1. The order provided in the previous paragraph must be renewed every six months.
Furthermore, according, to Article 207-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the president of the investigating chamber before whom the continuation of the investigation is contested, decides within eight days of receiving the case file whether there are grounds for referring the case to the investigating chamber, by a ruling that is not open to appeal. Once seised of the case, the investigating chamber may either send the case to the trial court or indict the defendant before the assize court, rule that there are no grounds to proceed, or call the case in and order an additional investigatory step, or send the case file back to the same investigating judge or to another, in order to carry on the investigation.
All these provisions relating to the respect for procedural deadlines are also available to the “témoin assisté” and the civil party (see above) (Articles 89-1, 116 § 8 and 175-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
2) Effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of criminal proceedings
The European Court considers (see in particular the Nouhaud case, judgment of 09/07/2002), that an application for compensation under Article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had, since the facts at the origin of the present cases, acquired sufficient legal certainty to be considered an effective remedy.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases. It further considers that all the above shows that it has acknowledged the difficulties confronting criminal courts in the exercise of their functions and taken measures to deal with them. France will continue to make all the necessary efforts so as to avoid new violations similar to those found in these cases. Hence, the government considers that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
[2] Seven cases ended between 1988 and 2000 and three cases ended respectively in 2002, 2003 and 2005.
[3] The default interest due was a minimal sum and the applicants have not insisted on its payment.
[4] The default interest due was a minimal sum and the applicant has not insisted on its payment.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy