RESOLUTION DH (98) 140

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION No. 23142/93

RUIN AGAINST FRANCE

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 June 1998

at the 633rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the report drawn up on 28 June 1995, by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 27 October 1993 by a French national, Mr Michel Ruin, against France;

Whereas on 5 September 1995 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 of the Convention ;

Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 17 January 1995, the applicant complained of the absence of a public hearing before disciplinary organs ( Chambre disciplinaire de l’ordre des experts comptables et des comptables agréés );

Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

Whereas, at the 556th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 9 February 1996, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

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 25 September 1996;

Whereas, at the 582nd meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held, by a decision adopted on 28 January 1997, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of France was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 20 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and that interest should be payable on any non-paid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay (in accordance with the decision adopted by the Committee of Minister at its 599 th meeting (17 September 1997) on the general principles regarding the payment of default interest) at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest will accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment is placed at the disposal of the applicant;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 9 February 1996 and 28 January 1997, having regard to France’s obligation under 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 recalled that measures had already been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation found in this case, notably with the acceptance by the Conseil d’Etat , since its Maubleu judgment of 14 February 1996, of the applicability of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention to ordinal disciplinary jurisdictions (see Resolutions Fouquet Raymond DH (97) 342 and Diennet DH (97) 352) and that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned ;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 28 July 1997, the Government of France paid the applicant the total sum of 20 000 French francs as just satisfaction, and on 8 December 1997 the default interest due,

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

Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.