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 on 12 October 1994 by the European
Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the
Convention relating to the applications lodged respectively on 10 June 1992 and
27 November 1992 by
Mr Francis Vanverberghe against France (Applications Nos. 20386/92 and
21074/92);
Whereas on 15 November 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 (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 applications, as declared admissible by the Commission on
11 May 1994, the applicant complained of the excessive length of his detention
on remand and of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings;
Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by twelve votes to one,
the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-
3), of the Convention, unanimously, that no separate question arose under
Article 6, paragraph 2
(art. 6-2), of the Convention and, by twelve votes to one, that there had been a
violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;
Whereas, at the 534th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 7 April
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
(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been a violation of Article 5,
paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention and 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
15 September 1995;
Whereas, on 19 October 1995, at the 546th meeting of the Deputies, 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, 55 000 French francs in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and 30 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses,
namely a total sum of 85 000 French francs;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to
inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 7 April 1995 and 19
October 1995, 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 the Government of
France paid the applicant the total sum of
85 000 French francs as just satisfaction, payment confirmed by letter dated 11
March 1996,
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 (96) 122
Information provided by the Government of France
during the examination of the Vanverberghe case
by the Committee of Ministers
The report of the Commission has been distributed to the relevant courts,
according to a practice established by the Government of France in similar
cases. The government is of the opinion that this practice will prevent the
repetition of similar violations as found in the present case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy