Resolution CM/ ResDH (2009)3 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Piron and Epoux Machard against France

(Application No. 36436/97, judgment of 14 November 2000, final on 14 February 2001

Application N o 42928/02, judgment of 25 April 2006, final on 13 September 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 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 concerning consolidation of parcels of land (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) and breaches of the applicants ’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to this excessive duration (violations 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 France ’ s 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;

Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised 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 (2009)3

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Piron and Epoux Machard against France

Introductory case summary

These cases concern violations of the applicants ’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, due to the particularly lengthy duration (more than thirty years in each case) of certain consolidation proceedings (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court recalled that the duration of such proceedings “is material, together with other elements, in determining whether the disputed transfer was compatible with the guarantee of the right of property”.

In the Piron case, the Court also found that the judicial proceedings had been excessively long, before administrative courts, concerning the consolidation proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Piron (n o 36436/97)

100 000 euros

100 000 euros

78 119 euros

278 119 euros

Paid on 17/12/2001

Epoux Machard (n o 42928/02)

-

20 000 euros

200 euros

20 200 euros

Paid on 16/03/2007

b) Individual measures

1) Piron case : Following the cancellation on 29/03/2002 by the Conseil d ’ Etat of the decision of 27/06/2000 on the applicant ’ s compensation by the competent authority, the National Land Development Board ( commission nationale de réaménagement foncier ), the latter body re-examined the case on 16/12/2003 and, in a motivated decision taken in the light of the report of a new expert and the oral observations of the applicant, increased the compensation from 28 730.85 to 93 741 euros . The decision indicates that the new amount takes into consideration “among other things the abnormal delay since the first decision of justice concerning the dispute ( ... ), and the subsequent loss of productivity”. On 10/08/2005, the Conseil d ’ Etat rejected the applicant ’ s appeal against the decision of 16/12/2003.

2) Epoux Machard case: It transpires from the European court ’ s judgment that the proceedings are closed and that no question arises concerning the execution of the internal decisions. The European Court compensated the non-pecuniary damage resulting from the length of the proceedings and dismissed the applicants ’ claims relating to possible pecuniary damage, in view of the absence of any causal link with the violation found.

II. General measures

1) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 : Since the material time, the Rural Code ( code rural ) has been extensively reformed by Law No.2005-157 of 23/02/2005 on rural development (which entered into force on 1/02/2006). This law has, in particular, changed the procedure for appeals against Departmental Land Development Boards (commissions départementales d ’ aménagement foncier ), which was to a great extent responsible for the excessive length of the proceedings in this case.

Before the Law of 23/02/2005 came into force, the Rural Code provided that decisions of Departmental Land Development Boards could be appealed before the Administrative Tribunal, on the contention that the Departmental Board had exceeded its authority. If the Departmental Board ’ s decision was annulled, it had to take a new decision within a year of the annulment becoming final. This new decision was subject to the same rules, i.e., it could be appealed once again.

If the Departmental Board failed to take a new decision within the one-year time limit, the case could be brought before the National Land Development Board. The same possibility was also open when two Departmental Board decisions concerning the same problem had been set aside on the same grounds by the administrative judge. Alternatively a case might also be referred to the National Board where the annulment of the Departmental Board ’ s decision by an administrative judge had caused delay (e.g. annulment followed either by failure to take a new decision within a year, or by a second annulment). Decisions of the National Board could themselves be appealed before the Conseil d ’ Etat on the grounds that the Board had exceeded its authority.

Where the National Board found restitution in kind to the landowner to be impossible, it had the power to award compensation. This prerogative was exceptional (reserved to cases where a change in the distribution of land needed for restitution in kind to the landowner would have had a disproportionate impact on other landowners ’ situations and would have compromised the regrouping of land).

Under the new rules, the National Land Development Board has been abolished and Article L. 121-11 of the Rural Code completely re-written accordingly, thus simplifying the procedure. As before, when the Departmental Board is faced with a new case it must rule on the legality of the regrouping of land. The decisions of the Departmental Land Development Boards can be appealed before the Administrative Tribunal.

Article L 121-10 of the Rural Code still states that if a Departmental Board decision is set aside by an administrative judge it has a year in which to take a new decision. However, like the National Board before it was abolished, Departmental Boards are now empowered to order the local authority ( Département ) to pay damages if it considers that changes in the distribution of land needed for restitution in kind to the landowner would have a disproportionate impact on the situation of other landowners.

This change in the law has a number of advantages which respond to the European Court ’ s findings of violations in these cases.

First, the administrative consolidation procedure is no longer prolonged by the intervention of a National Board which was often faced with unanswerable legal questions. The suppression of this body has caused no major difficulties, in the sense that the judge himself can make up for the absence of decision by the Departmental Board within the one-year limit after its decision has been set aside by the administrative jurisdiction. The judge has a number of legal instruments to ensure compliance with his judgment, especially his power to give directions, if necessary coercive ones, to the local Département under Article L.911-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice.

Secondly, the Departmental Board ’ s right, once its first decision has been set aside, to award damages to the interested landowner, enables it to settle disputes faster and more easily, without affecting the rights of other landowners (who might become potential applicants) and without affecting the coherence of the distribution of land.

Finally, when the Departmental Board awards damages, proceedings can no longer be prolonged by the repeated appeals against its different decisions which made the former procedure interminable. From now on, although the decision to award damages may be appealed, once the remedies available before the administrative courts are exhausted, the procedure finally ends.

2) Violation of Article 6, paragraph 1: A number of measures have been taken to avoid the excessive length of procedures before the administrative jurisdiction (recruitment, procedural reform, etc.). Theses measures were presented in the context of the case of Raffi against France and thirty other similar cases (Resolution CM/ ResDH (2008)12).

This is particularly interesting with respect to judicial proceedings concerning consolidation, in that before the 2005 reform, the Rural Code stated that appeals against damages awarded to landowners were brought before the expropriation judge (a judge with civil competence who is guardian of the right of ownership). Now, Article L. 121-11 of the Rural Code gives this competence to the administrative judge, who must assess the lawfulness of the entire procedure. This unification of actions for consolidation proceedings fosters swift and coherent case-handling and is guarantee of efficiency for the citizen.

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, that these measures will prevent new, 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 9 January 2009 at the 1043rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies