Resolution ResDH (2002)100 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 May 1998 in the case of Gautrin and others against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 October 2002 at the 810th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Gautrin and others delivered on 20 May 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in four applications (Nos. 21257/93 to 21260/93) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 January 1993 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Norbert Gautrin for the first application, Mr Jérôme Fillion for the second, Mr Dominique Mynard for the third and Ms Anne Allemandou and 101 others for the fourth, all French nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints concerning the lack of public hearings before disciplinary courts – the Ile -de-France Regional Council and the disciplinary section of the National Council of the Ordre des Médecins – and the lack of impartiality of those bodies;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the French government on 14 February 1997;

Whereas in its judgment of 20 May 1998 the Court unanimously:

- dismissed the Government’s preliminary objections;

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in that the applicants’ case had not been heard in public;

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in that the applicants’ case had not been heard by an impartial tribunal;

- held that the present judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any alleged non-pecuniary damage;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay, within three months, in respect of costs and expenses : 13 650 French francs to Mr Fillion ; 6 030 French francs to Mr Boyer ; 50 000 French francs jointly to the other one-hundred and two applicants 1 ; and that simple interest at an annual rate of 3,36% 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 satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11, these Rules are applicable by decision of the Committee of Ministers to cases under former Article 54;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 20 May 1998, having regard to France’s obligation under former Article 53 of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing 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 20 August 1998, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 20 May 1998,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 54 of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH (2002)100

Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the Gautrin and others case by the Committee of Ministers

The French Government recalls that as far as the absence of publicity is concerned, measures have already been adopted to prevent similar violations occurring, notably the adoption of Decree No 93-181 of 5 February 1993 which provides that hearings on disciplinary matters before a body of the Ordre des médecins are public (see Resolution DH(97)352 in the case of Diennet against France).

It notes that inter alia , given the specific facts of the case, new violations regarding the impartiality of disciplinary bodies of the Ordre des médecins could be avoided in the future by informing the authorities directly concerned of the requirements of the Convention: the disciplinary body of the National Council of the Ordre des médecins has accordingly sent a circular on 24 September 2001 to the Presidents and general Secretaries of the regional councils, drawing their attention to the case of Gautrin and others and the requirement of impartiality contained in Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The French government is of the opinion that these measures will prevent the repetition of the violations found in the present case and considers that it has therefore fulfilled its obligations with regard to former Article 54 of the Convention.

Note 1 One of the applicants, Mr Prêt, died in the course of the proceedings. No just satisfaction is awarded to him by the Court.