Final Resolution ResDH (2002)62 Human Rights Application No. 36153/97 Durrand against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 June 2002 at the 798th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (99) 367, adopted on 9 June 1999 in the case of Durrand against France, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damage, and to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights;

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

Whereas at the 677th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 15 July 1999, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 30 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 9 June 1999 and 15 July 1999, 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 indicated that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;

Having regard to the information given by the government of the respondent state during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution);

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 31 August 1999, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the total sum of 30 000 French francs as just satisfaction,

Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Final Resolution ResDH (2002)62

Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the Durrand case by the Committee of Ministers

The French government points out that in accordance with Article 175-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

“anyone charged with an offence or the civil party to the proceedings may, after a period of a year commencing, as appropriate, from the date he or she was charged or joined the proceedings, ask the investigating judge either to refer the case to the trial court or declare that there is no case to be heard. Within a month of receiving this request, the investigating judge shall issue an order giving specific reasons for either granting the request or stating the need for further investigation. In the event of the former, the judge shall proceed in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 1.

In cases where the investigating judge fails to rule within the deadline stipulated in the previous paragraph, the party concerned may apply directly to the indictments chamber, which has twenty days in which to hand down a decision based on the Attorney-General’s reasoned submissions in writing.”

The government points out that in a decision dated 15 January 1997, which cites in particular the rights of parties to make sure their case is heard within a reasonable time, the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation clearly stated that the request referred to in Article 175-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be repeated providing a further period of a year had elapsed since the previous request.

Consequently, the circular of 1 March 1993 on application of Article 175-1 mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Commission’s report no longer applies.

The French government considers, therefore, that all the consequences have been drawn from the Commission’s report in this case.