Resolution DH (2000) 43

concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 16 December 1992 in the case of De Geouffre de la Pradelle against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers

on 10 April 2000 at the 704th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of 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 De Geouffre de la Pradelle case delivered on 16 December 1992 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 12964/87) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 February 1987 under Article 25 of the Co n vention by Mr Raymond De Geouffre de la Pradelle, a French national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court because the administration had not notified in time a designation decision, and the complaint that he had not had an effective remedy;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 13 December 1991;

Whereas in its judgment of 16 December 1992 the Court :

- dismissed, unanimously, the Government of the respondent State preliminary objection;

- held, by eight votes to one, that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary also to examine the case under Article 13 of the Convention;

- held, unanimously, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 100 000 French francs in respect of damage and 75 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses;

- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Art i cle 54 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 judgment of 16 December 1992, having regard to France’s obligation under Article 53 of the Conve n tion 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 that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;

Having satisfied itself that on 10 March 1993 the Government of the respondent State paid the a p plicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 16 December 1992,

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

Appendix to Resolution DH (2000) 43

Information provided by the Government of France during the examination of the De Geouffre de la Pradelle case

by the Committee of Ministers

A commentary on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights may be found in the Cahiers du CREDHO (journal published by the Rouen University Research and Study Centre on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law), No. 1 - 1994; the full text of the judgment may be consulted on the Légifrance website (www.legifrance.gouv.fr).

Pursuant to the Court's judgment, the Ministry of the Environment has introduced a new procedure whereby designation orders are systematically published when they do not comprise any specific provisions leading to changes in the state or use of the places in question, so that interested parties can avail themselves fully of the time allowed under Article 49 of the Order of 31 July 1945 for lodging an appeal with the Conseil d'Etat .

Decisions to designate sites as places of interest are forwarded systematically by the Prime Minister's Office, after publication in the Official Gazette, to the Nature and Landscapes Directorate of the Ministry of Regional Planning and the Environment:

- the Directorate of Nature and Landscapes immediately forwards designation orders to the prefects of the départements concerned and asks them to have them posted at the town hall and published in two local newspapers;

- the prefects immediately forward the designation decisions to the mayor of the municipality/municipalities concerned and asks him/her to ensure that they are immediately posted at the town hall and in other appropriate places for one month;

- as well as having the designation posted at the town hall, the prefect of the département ensures that an announcement of the decision is published conspicuously in two newspapers, including at least one daily newspaper, distributed in the municipality concerned;

- the Ministry of Regional Planning and Environment always satisfies itself that designation orders have been posted at the préfecture and the town hall by asking the prefect concerned to produce certificates to this effect, and that they have been published in the local press by asking the prefect concerned to produce invoices showing the amount charged for having the announcement published in the press.

The Court's judgment has been forwarded to the Conseil d'Etat , which has also been informed of the new procedure introduced by the Ministry of Regional Planning and the Environment.

The Government considers that, given the status of the Convention and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in domestic law (see, inter alia, Conseil d'Etat 14 February 1996 Maubleu, Cass. Soc. 14 January 1999 Bozkurt, Cass. Civ. 28 April 1998 M.G., Cass. Crim. 6 May 1997 Landry), if a dispute similar to that which gave rise to the present case were brought before the Conseil d'Etat , the new publication arrangements would certainly be taken into account in considering the admissibility of the application and in computing the time-limits for bringing an appeal, thus ensuring that appellants enjoy a practical, effective right of access to the courts.

The Government of France is of the opinion that it has thus fulfilled its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention.