FIFTY-EIGHT CASES AGAINST FRANCE
Doc ref: 37565/97, 41358/98, 43719/98, 43969/98, 45256/99, 46098/99, 46820/99, 46215/99, 46659/99, 48954/99, ... • ECHR ID: 001-69929
Document date: July 18, 2005
- Inbound citations: 3101
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 16
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
Resolution ResDH(2005)63 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 58 cases against France (see Appendix to this Resolution) of excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before the administrative courts
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 July 2005 at the 933rd meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the P rotection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by P rotocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 58 cases, details of which appear in the Appendix to this Resolution, delivered between 4 June 1999 and 5 October 2004 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the cases originated in applications against France (see Appendix), lodged either with the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 of the Convention, or with the European Court under Article 34 of the Convention, and that the Court (seised of the cases lodged before the Commission under Article 5, paragraph 2, of P rotocol No. 11) declared admissible the complaints relating to the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts;
Recalling that in the cases of SA P L and Théry, the Court also declared admissible the applicants ' complaints regarding the violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings, but found that it was not necessary to examine these complaints in the light of its findings regarding the length of proceedings;
Whereas in its judgments Court:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgments become final, certain sums (see Appendix) and that simple interest at an annual rate (set by the Court in each judgment) would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicants ' claim for just satisfa c tion;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the mea s ures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments, having regard to France ' s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by them;
Whereas during the examination of the cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state indicated that the judgments of the European Court had been transmitted to the authorities concerned and in order to remedy, as far as possible, the consequences of the violations for the applicants ( restitutio in integrum) , the Committee asked for the proceedings, still pending at the time of the Court ' s judgments to be accelerated,
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the general measures taken to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on the dates mentioned in the Appendix, the government of the respondent state had paid the a p plicants the sums provided for in the judgments as well as default interest in cases paid after expiry of the time limit set (see Appendix),
Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH((2005)63
Concerning fifty eight cases against France relating to the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before the administrative courts
1. Details of just satisfaction awarded to the applicants
Loading citations...CASES CONCERNING THE EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS
Cases brought before the European Commission of Human Rights
(former Article 25 of the Convention)
Case
Judgment of
Final on
Non-pecuniary damages and/or costs
P ayment on
SA P L 37565/97
18/12/2001
18/03/2002
10 500 euros
23/05/2002
DESMOTS André 41358/98
02/07/2002
06/11/2002
6 000 euros
23/05/2003 + interest
SCOTTI Jean ‑ Claude 43719/98
07/01/2003
21/05/2003
500 euros
12/08/2003
KROLICZEK Mieczyslaw 43969/98
02/07/2002
21/05/2003
7 800 euros
07/07/2003
RICHEUX Alain 45256/99
12/06/2003
12/09/2003
2 800 euros
27/11/2003
CLINIQUE MOZART SARL
46098/99
08/06/2004
08/09/2004
9 000 euros
03/12/2004
ZUILI Hector et Dominique 46820/99
22/07/2003
22/10/2003
9 543,46 euros
19/11/2003
Applications brought before the European Court of Human Rights
(Article 34 of the Convention)
Case
Judgment of
Final on
Non-pecuniary damages and/or costs
P ayment on
FAIVRE Jacques 46215/99
17/12/2002
21/05/2003
12 000 euros
01/07/2003
VERRERIE DE BIOT S.A. 46659/99
27/05/2003
27/08/2003
11 700 euros
01/10/2003
TRAORE Assa 48954/99
17/12/2002
17/03/2003
11 943,50 euros
23/05/2003
BUTEL P atrice 49544/99
12/11/2002
12/02/2003
10 100 euros
11/04/2003
HEIDECKER-CAR P ENTIER Christine 50368/99
17/12/2002
17/03/2003
15 525 euros
23/05/2003
RAITIERE P aul 51066/99
04/02/2003
04/05/2003
5 000 euros
27/06/2003
SOLANA Henri 51179/99
19/03/2002
04/09/2002
3 048,98 euros
22/04/2003 + interest
VIEZIEZ Jacques 52116/99
15/10/2002
21/05/2003
6 180 euros
23/04/2003
RACINET Guy
53544/99
23/09/2003
24/03/2004
8 275,46 euros
03/12/2004 + interest
MOUFFLET Claude 53988/00
03/02/2004
14/06/2004
7 500 euros
22/11/2004 + interest
BUFFERNE Béatrice 54367/00
11/02/2003
09/07/2003
2 000 euros
06/10/2003
MAIGNANT Hélène
54618/00
21/09/2004
21/12/2004
10 000 euros
04/03/2005
A P P IETTO Michel 56927/00
25/02/2003
09/07/2003
6 200 euros
23/09/2003
RAITIERE Michel 57734/00
17/06/2003
24/09/2003
6 000 euros
12/01/2004 + interest
BENHAIM Max 58600/00
04/02/2003
04/05/2003
7 000 euros
03/07/2003
P LOT Serge 59153/00
17/06/2003
17/09/2003
6 100 euros
01/10/2003
P ERHIRIN Jean 60545/00
04/02/2003
21/05/2003
3 500 euros
06/10/2003 + interest
SELLIER Françoise 60992/00
23/09/2003
23/12/2003
6 750 euros
09/04/2004 + interest
JARLAN Christophe 62274/00
15/04/2003
15/07/2003
5 100 euros
12/08/2003
MUSTAFA Raoul 63056/00
17/06/2003
17/09/2003
6 000 euros
01/10/2003
MIRAILLES Robert 63156/00
09/03/2004
09/06/2004
5 991 euros
09/08/2004
P OILLY Jean-Claude 68155/01
29/07/2003
29/10/2003
5 000 euros
12/11/2003
CARRIES Roger 74628/01
20/07/2004
20/10/2004
6 000 euros
22/11/2004
CAILLE Alain
3455/02
05/10/2004
05/01/2005
4 773 euros
02/03/2005
REISSE Roland
24051/02
05/10/2004
05/01/2005
3 000 euros
02/03/2005
ONNIKIAN Kervork
15816/02
05/10/2004
05/01/2005
4 000 euros
22/04/2005 + interest
MITRE Jacques
44010/02
05/10/2004
05/01/2005
5 000 euros
02/03/2005
CASES CONCERNING THE EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF P ROCEEDINGS BEFORE AMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND IN P ARTICULAR THE CONSEIL D ' ETAT
Cases brought before the European Commission of Human Rights
(former Article 25 of the Convention)
Case
Judgment of
Final on
Non-pecuniary damages and costs
P ayment on
CAILLOT Simone 36932/97
04/06/1999
04/09/1999
25 000 French francs
01/03/2000 + interest
BALLESTRA Albin 28660/95
12/12/2000
12/03/2001
100 300 French francs
01/03/2001
FRYDLENDER Nicolas 30979/96
27/06/2000
27/06/2000
110 000 French francs
28/08/2000
BLAISOT Charles et Marie 33207/96
25/01/2000
25/04/2000
50 000 French francs
06/06/2000
THERY Hubert 33989/96
01/02/2000
01/05/2000
40 000 French francs
03/08/2000
LAMBOURDIERE Rodolphe 37387/97
02/08/2000
02/11/2000
50 000 French francs
28/11/2000
ZANATTA Aldo et Jean-Baptiste 38042/97
28/03/2000
28/06/2000
40 000 French francs
19/06/2000
ARVOIS Armel 38249/97
23/11/1999
23/02/2000
35 000 French francs
02/06/2000 + interest
OUENDENO Alexis 39996/98
16/04/2002
10/07/2002
6 500 euros
11/10/2002 (applicant waived interest in view of small amount)
GARCIA Joseph ‑ Gilbert 41001/98
26/09/2000
26/12/2000
52 200 French francs
21/05/2001 + interest
DURAND Louis (n o 1) 41449/98
13/11/2001
13/02/2002
40 000 French francs
03/04/2002 + interest
DURAND Louis (n o 2) 42038/98
13/11/2001
13/02/2002
40 000 French francs
12/07/2002
H.L. 42189/98
07/02/2002
07/05/2002
12 200 euros
07/07/2002
JULIEN Lucien 42276/98
14/11/2002
21/05/2003
-
-
CAM P S Gabriel 42401/98
24/10/2000
04/04/2001
30 000 French francs
17/12/2001 + interest
GRASS Serge 44066/98
09/11/2000
09/02/2001
40 000 French francs
18/04/2001
LERAY Stéphane et autres 44617/98
20/12/2001
20/03/2002
640 000 French francs
21/06/2002 (applicant waived interest in view of small amount)
GENTILHOMME Sylvette, SCHAF-BENHADJI Jeanine et ZEROUKI France 48205/99
48207/99
48209/99
14/05/2002
14/08/2002
25 829.40 euros
11/10/2002
Applications brought before the European Court of Human Rights
(Article 34 of the Convention)
Case
Judgment of
Final on
Non-pecuniary damages and costs
P ayment on
BAILLARD Michel 51575/99
26/03/2002
04/09/2002
7 000 euros
18/12/2002 + interest
E P OUX GOLETTO 54596/00
04/02/2003
04/05/2003
8 000 euros
03/07/2003
CHAUFOUR Hubert 54757/00
19/03/2002
19/06/2002
6 500 euros
12/07/2002
ASNAR Claude 57030/00
17/06/2003
03/12/2003
20 000 euros
01/10/2003
BARTRE Georges 70753/01
12/11/2003
12/02/2004
13 500 euros
01/04/2004
GOBRY P ascal 71367/01
06/07/2004
06/10/2004
10 500 euros
27/10/2004
2. Information provided by the government of France during the detailed examination of these cases by the Committee of Ministers
In 1995, in final Resolution DH(95)254 in the Beaumartin case, the Committee of Ministers noted the measures adopted at the time by the respondent state to reduce the length of proceedings before administrative courts and the Conseil d ' Etat in particular. Since that time, the European Court of Human Rights has found new violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of excessive length of proceedings before the administrative courts in general and/or before the Conseil d ' Etat in particular. The respondent state has therefore adopted further measures to avoid new, similar violations.
Measures adopted
Structural measures
The main measure has been the “orientation and planning for justice Act” adopted on 9 September 2002, which aims at providing swifter justice, not least in the administrative sector, by reducing the time required for judgments to one year at every level of jurisdiction. This act defines the orientations and the scheduling of the judicial apparatus for the period 2003 – 2007 and is accompanied by texts on implementation.
To attain its objectives, the Act lays down programmes for the increase of courts ' human resources, both judges (210 posts – i.e. 25% of the level existing when the Act was adopted) and registry staff (270 posts) and authorises the recruitment of assistants de justice appointed to assist members of courts as well as the Conseil d ' Etat . Implementation of this recruitment programme was initiated in accordance with the Act: 59 administrative court advisors were recruited in 2002, 74 in 2003 and 85 in 2004. To date, 183 assistants de justice have been recruited.
The Act also sets up three new courts: an 8th administrative court of appeal established in Versailles on 1 September 2004 and administrative courts in Nîmes and Toulon. These new courts are additional to those already set up in Cergy- P ontoise and Melun.
It also allocates to the Conseil d ' Etat and administrative courts 114 million euros for normal expenditure and 60 million in the form of authorised programmes to be consecrated principally to improving court computer services and premises.
Among other innovations, the Act makes it possible to conclude “contracts of objectives” between the Conseil d ' Etat and P residents of administrative courts of appeal or even administrative courts which so wish. These contracts specify the additional resources allocated to the court, in return for which the court commits itself, in the form of exit objectives, to improve the efficiency of its working methods and the promptness with which it deals with cases.
P rocedural measures
Several measures have been taken to reduce both the number of old cases pending and the flow of new ones.
- With regard to administrative courts of appeal , Decree No. 2003-543 was adopted on 24 June 2003, modifying the regulatory part of the Code of Administrative Justice in two significant ways as regards appeal procedure: first compulsory representation by counsel at appeal, and secondly the suppression of appeals for certain kinds of proceedings involving small claims.
- Concerning disputed proceedings before the Conseil d ' Etat , steps have been taken among other things to reduce the workload associated with appeals by foreigners (appeals against denial of visas and against decisions of return to the frontier, appeals on points of law against decisions of the Refugees ' appeals board) which in 2001 amounted to more than 40% of the net intake of appeals before the Conseil d ' Etat. Under the terms of the Decree of 10 November 2000, appeals against visa refusals must be preceded by an administrative appeal to a board specially set up for this purpose, thus curtailing the volume of such appeals. In application of the 2002 Act mentioned above, jurisdiction for appeals against administrative court judgements on return to the frontier has been transferred, as from 1 January 2005, from the Conseil d ' Etat to administrative courts of appeal, the resources of which have been reinforced accordingly. Appeals of this kind previously represented practically a fifth of all appeals pending before the Conseil d ' Etat . For the future, a system whereby appeals may be introduced using new communications technologies, throughout the investigatory phase, put in place experimentally at first but ultimately generally, will also contribute to improving the promptness of judgments.
Results
- With regard to administrative courts , positive results have been registered to the extent that the number of cases judged by administrative courts has increased perceptibly in recent years (increase of 15% net between 2002 and 2004) but, taking into account the considerable increase in the volume of litigation (32% net in two years) more effort is needed and will be made. At the end of 2004, the ratio of cases judged as against cases registered was 90%. Thanks to the increase in productivity, the average time to judge a case in 2004 remained close to that of 2003, i.e. 18 months, 10 days.
- With regard to administrative courts of appeal , the situation has improved notably, in particular thanks to the implementation of the reform of appeals provided in Decree No. 2003-543 (reduction in input) and the efforts undertaken in the context of the “contracts of objectives” (all objectives fixed in 2003 and 2004 were attained or, in most cases, exceeded). For the first time ever in 2003 and subsequently in 2004, the courts judged more cases than had been lodged. Thus between 2002 and 2004 the rate of coverage of new cases by cases disposed of increased by nearly 50 percentage points, from 92% to 141%, allowing a perceptible decrease in pending cases and paving the way for progress towards reducing the time required for a judgment to one year, as provided in the 2002 Act. The forecast average time is at present 1 year, 9 months and 6 days net. The results are thus encouraging, even if the rate of progress risks being affected in the future by budgetary constraints and the effect of transferring jurisdiction for some kinds of cases to administrative courts of appeal.
- With regard to disputes before the Conseil d ' Etat , developments are also positive. When the final resolution in the Beaumartin case was adopted in 1995, the average time for judging cases was already less than two years, compared with 36 months in 1987 and 26 months in 1990. In 2003, for the first time ever, the objective of a number of pending cases less than the courts ' annual capacity to judge them was realised and the average duration fell below the symbolic threshold of 12 months, to 10 months, 15 days, which is the target fixed in the Act of 2002. In 2004, given the sharp rise in intake (26%) the average fell back to 12½ months but the relationship between the number of pending cases and the productive capacity reached in 2003 was maintained.
Effective remedy for complaints concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings
It should also be noted that applicants consider that their case is taking too long to be settled, they have an effective remedy at their disposal, for both pending and completed proceedings (appeal founded on the state ' s responsibility for defective functioning of the public justice service). The European Court has itself so found (for example in its judgment of 21 October 2003 in the case of Broca and Texier-Micault against France).
The French government is of the view that all the above shows that it has acknowledged the difficulties confronting administrative courts in the exercise of their functions and taken measures to deal with them. The government will continue to make all the necessary efforts so as to avoid new violations similar to those found in these cases.