Resolution CM/ ResDH (2010) 85 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Mazélié against France

(Application No. 5356/04, judgment of 27 June 2006, final on 23 October 2006)

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 judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for property: the applicant, as putative owner of property that was actually state-owned, was assigned responsibility for repairs to the property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 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 judgment;

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;

Recalling that a finding of a violation by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its 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

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2010)85

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Mazélié against France

Introductory case summary

The case concerns interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In 1966 the applicant purchased a property on the site of a former feudal castle. The property, on which he built a house in 1967, was located on a flat area surrounded by ramparts. Having been mistakenly identified by the local authority as owner of these ramparts, he was assigned responsibility for their repair. This gave rise to protracted litigation which affected the market value of the property actually owned by the applicant and his ability to dispose of it. Today it is clear, however, as acknowledged by the French courts, that the ramparts at issue are owned by the state whose duty it is to look after their upkeep. The European Court was surprised that it had taken over 30 years and several lawsuits to arrive at a finding which seemed self-evident. In particular, it had difficulty in understanding how the state, cited as third party as from 1973 in proceedings the object of which was precisely to identify the owner of the ramparts, had not come to this conclusion at an early stage. It perceived in this posture gross administrative negligence which had had significant adverse consequences for the applicant. Since the interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for property was founded on an error of law ascribable entirely to the authorities, the Court held that it did not have a proper legal basis.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

25 000 euros

25 000 euros

50 000 euros

Paid on 25/03/2008

b) Individual measures

Before the E uropean Court , the applicant claimed just satisfaction as redress for all the pecuniary damage which he considered due to the violation. He asked for the reversal of all the French court judgments and decisions, restitution of the house and the land of which he had lost possession in the meantime, compensation for having forfeited the enjoyment of an outbuilding with a view, demolished during the work done on the property, and for the various losses linked with the impossibility of turning to account an invention of which he was the originator.

The Court recalled that its finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1concerned neither the forced sale of the applicant ’ s property nor the damage done to it by the state. Consequently, there was no question of awarding a sum on those grounds. It also considered that no causal link had been proven between the established violation of the Convention and the loss of profit that the applicant might have derived from the sale of his invention and from the ownership of his patents, and the outlay which he had made to protect them. Finally, it dismissed all the applicant ’ s claims in respect of pecuniary damage. On the other hand, the E uropean Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage caused by anxiety and tension engendered over a very long period.

II. General measures

The government considers that the violation found arose from an isolated error, not an intrinsic malfunction of the state property register system. The Ministry of the Economy stated in particular that the general state property register included no historical details of the assets but was updated yearly, which could account for the “disappearance” of the property adjacent to the applicant ’ s land from this register which was different each year.

In order to prevent gross administrative negligence (§29 of the judgmen t ) of this kind from recurring, the attention of the competent authorities was drawn to the Court ’ s finding of a violation, so that they might take direct account of it. The European Court ’ s judgment was circulated to the authorities concerned, in particular local authorities, and posted on the website of the Ministry of the Interior. It was also presented in Médiateur Actualités , le journal du Médiateur de la République , 23 rd edition, in November 2006 and was the subject of a commentary in a legal journal with a high circulation among state government departments and local authorities. It is published on the website of the Court of Cassation (section Observatoire du Droit européen ).

Finally, having regard to the duration of the proceedings, the French authorities recall that many measures have been taken to avert undue length of proceedings, whether administrative (see Final Resolution CM/ ResDH (2008)12 in the case of Raffi against France and thirty other cases) or civil (see Final Resolution CM/ ResDH (2008)39 in the case of C.R. against France and 9 other cases).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies