Final Resolution CM /ResDH(2007)40

Human Rights

Application No. 27413/95

Cazes against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007, at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the P rotection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to Interim Resolution DH(99)31, adopted on 18 January 1999 in the case of Cazes against France, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention on account of a breach of the presumption of innocence in certain proceedings before the national commission for compensation in respect of detention on remand ( Commission nationale d ' indemnisation en matière de détention provisoire ), and to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the European Commission of Human Rights when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the P resident of the Commission dated 26 May 1999;

Whereas at the 659th meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agre e ing with the Commission ' s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 14 February 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants just satisfaction, within three months, 80 000 French Francs for all damages taken together, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant;

Whereas at the 721st meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agre e ing with the Commission ' s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 2 October 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 70 000 French Francs in respect of costs and expenses, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 18 January 1999, 14 February 2000 and 2 October 2000, having regard to France ' s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state accordingly gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee ' s decisions taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case (this information a p pears in the appendix to this resol u tion);

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the total sum of 150 000 French Francs as just satisfaction,

Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state and considering the decision taken at its 757th meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies (26 June 2001), declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case and decides to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM /ResDH(2007)40

Information provided by the government of France during the examination of the Cazes case by the Committee of Ministers

First of all, the French authorities consider that the present violation came about because the appeal forms were not sufficiently precise: litigants, at the time of the facts in question, had the choice of ticking only two boxes: “criminal provisions” and/or “civil provisions”. This could leave some doubt as to the exact scope of the appeal.

The addition of a third box (“customs provisions”) on the forms in question has taken away this imprecision and should therefore help prevent a repetition of violations similar to the one found in the present case.

Second, the law of 15 June 2000 reinforcing the protection of the presumption of innocence and the rights of victims has amended the provisions of the Code of Criminal P rocedure in respect of compensation for detention on remand. In particular, it provides that the deliberations of the Compensation Commission “shall take place in public except where the applicant objects” and that the Commission “shall provide reasons for its decision”. The later modifications of the law confirmed that the deliberations before the competent authorities in respect of compensation for detention on remand “take place in public audience except opposition of the applicant” and that decisions of these bodies have to be motivated.

The government of France is convinced, given the status of the Convention and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in domestic law (see, inter alia, Cass. Sociale 14 January 1999 Bozkurt, Cass. Criminelle 16 January 2001, judgment No. 7688, Cass. Criminelle 16 May 2001, judgment No. 3659), that the judges sitting on the Compensation Commission will, when considering applications for compensation for detention on remand, take account of the Strasbourg case-law in order to avoid further violations of Article 6, paragrah2.

The government of France is of the opinion that these measures will prevent the repetition of violations similar to those found in the present case and that France has thus fulfilled its obligations under former Article 32 de la Convention.