Lexploria

Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)189 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

in 21 cases against Belgium concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, in particular before the Brussels Court of Appeal

(list 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 “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 civil proceedings, in particular before the Brussels Court of Appeal (violations of article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion 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 a p plicants the just satisfaction 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;

Recalling that on 23 February 2005, in view of the measures presented by the Belgian authorities (see Appendix to this resolution), the Committee of Ministers decided to put an end to its supervision of the execution of these cases;

Adding however that in the meantime another group of cases concerning the excessive length of proceedings was constituted ( Dumont group of cases) and that the Committee continues supervising the execution of that group;

DECLARES, in view of its decision of 23 February 2005 mentioned above, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in the present cases and consequently

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)189

Information on the measures taken to comply with 21 judgments against Belgium concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, in particular before the Brussels Court of Appeal

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, in particular before the Brussels Court of Appeal (violations of Article 6§1). The proceedings at issue began between 1981 and 1998.

The European Court recalled its constant case-law according to which the chronic overload of a court does not provide a valid justification for the length of proceedings, and that Article 6§1 obliges states parties to the Convention to organise their judiciary so that the courts can comply with each of its requirements, including the requirement to have a case heard within a reasonable time (judgment in Oval against Belgium, §17).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Oval (49794/99) judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

-

7436,81 EUR

2974,72 EUR

10 411,53 EUR

Paid on 17/06/2003 + interest

Oren and Shoshan (49332/99) judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

-

Sitram (49495/99) judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

-

2478,94 EUR

4957,88 EUR

Paid on 24/06/2003 + interest

Nelissenne (49518/99) judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04

-

5000 EUR

-

5000Paid on 07.01.2004

Dooms and others (49522/99) judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

-

11500 EUR

277,76 EUR

11 777,76 EUR

Paid on 20/06/2003 + interest

Lefebvre (49546/99) judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

-

8000 EUR

3050,45 EUR

11 050,45 EUR

Paid on 19.06.2003 + interest

De Plaen (49797/99) judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

-

7436,81 EUR

1859,20 EUR

9296,01 EUR

Paid on 17.06.2003 + interest

Randaxhe (50172/99) judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

-

Kenes (50566/99) judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

-

Boca (50615/99) judgment of 15/12/02, final on 15/02/03

-

Gökce and others (50624/99) judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

2500 EUR

5000 EUR

2500 EUR

10 000 EUR

Payment within time limit confirmed by lawyer

Olbregts (50853/99) judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

-

1808,38 EUR

Paid on 13.03.2004

Dautel (50855/99) judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

-

8000 EUR

2000 EUR

10 000 EUR

Paid on 30.06.2003

Lenaerts (50857/99) judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

-

3740 EUR

Payment within time limit confirmed by lawyer

Willekens (50859/99) judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

-

Bouzalmad (51083/99) judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

-

6500 EUR

-

6500 EUR

Payment within time limit confirmed by lawyer

Gillet (52229/99) judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/04/03

-

12 000 EUR

2000 EUR

14 000 EUR

Paid on 11.07.2003

Rouard (52230/99) judgment of 29/07/04, final on 29/10/04

-

Roobaert (52231/99) judgment of 29/07/04, final on 29/10/04

-

GB- Unic (No. 1) (52303/99) judgment of 29/07/04, final on 29/10/04

-

5000 EUR

Paid on 22.10.2004

GB- Unic (No. 2) (52304/99) judgment of 29/07/04, final on 29/10/04

-

5000 EUR

Paid on 22.10.2004

b) Individual measures

The authorities confirmed in a letter dated 15/12/2004 that all the cases have been closed by final judgments rendered by supplementary chambers of the Court of Appeal (see below). Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.

II. General measures

Several measures have been taken: inter alia, a law of 09/07/1997 “containing measures to reduce the judicial backlog in Courts of Appeal” instituted a system of supplementary chambers and additional judges. The authorities also indicated that other measures were being adopted or implemented to reduce the backlog in Belgium (procedural measures, in particular to give judges a more active role in proceedings; an increase in the number of legal officers ( référendaires and juristes de parquet ); draft law on arbitration; improvement of Courts ’ organisation and management, etc.). Most of these measures came within the scope of a general plan (Plan Thémis ) drawn up by the Belgian Minister of Justice.

Furthermore, measures have also been adopted concerning the Brussels Court of Appeal in particular. To enforce the law of 1997 mentioned above, supplementary chambers have been created to deal with the backlog, which had at that time the effect of reducing the maximum waiting period in the ordinary chambers of the Brussels Court of Appeal to one year. Moreover, a “ Brussels judicial backlog Commission” was created on the initiative of the Ministry of Justice. A law was passed on 16/07/2002 increasing the number of additional judges at the Brussels Court of Appeal from 25 to 50; a body of provisional advisors to absorb the backlog before courts of appeal was set up under the law of 29/11/2001. Finally, a “an agreement of mutual commitment counteract the judicial backlog” ( protocole d ’ engagement réciproque pour lutter contre l ’ arriéré judiciaire ) was negotiated between the Ministry of Justice and the executives ( chefs de corps ) of the Brussels Courts. In substance, it is a matter of granting human and material resources to the courts in return for increased efforts to reduce the backlog. The Belgian authorities added in a letter dated 15/12/2004 that of all the cases attributed to supplementary chambers, only six were still pending, and that for at least four of them a final judgment would be rendered by the end of 2004.

Finally these judgments, like all European Court ’ s judgments delivered concerning Belgium , have been published in the three official languages on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no other individual measure is required to remedy the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases. It further recalls that the general measures continue to be examined by the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the Dumont group of cases against Belgium . Thus, it considers that Belgium has complied with its obligati ons under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in these cases.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Menu

CASE OF OVAL AND 20 OTHER CASES AGAINST BELGIUM

CASE OF OVAL AND 20 OTHER CASES AGAINST BELGIUM