RESOLUTION DH (98) 136

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION No. 18657/91

G., A., G. AND C. J. 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 11 April 1996 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 5 August 1991 by French nationals, G., A., G. and C. J., against France;

Whereas on 14 May 1996 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 their application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 12 October 1994, the first applicant complained notably of the unlawfulness of his confinement in a mental hospital, the lack of information concerning the reasons of his detention, the absence of a speedy decision on the lawfulness of his detention and the impossibility to obtain reparation; the four applicants complained also of the violation of their right to respect for private life and of the lack of remedies before nationals courts;

Whereas in its report the Commission expressed the opinion, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Convention; by fourteen votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the private life of the first applicant and the family life of all the applicants; and unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 13 of the Convention;

Whereas, at the 576th 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 15 November 1996, that there had been in this case no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention; that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention; that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention; that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Convention; and that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the private life of the first applicant and the family life of all the applicants;

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 applicants, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 18 July 1997;

Whereas, at the 605th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held, by a decision adopted on 29 October 1997, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent State was to pay the first applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 30 000 French Francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 10 000 French Francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 40 000 French Francs, 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 15 November 1996 and 29 October 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 gave the Committee information concerning the measures taken; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 27 January 1998, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent State paid the applicant the total sum of 40 000 French Francs as just satisfaction,

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.

Appendix to Resolution DH (98) 136

Information provided by the Government of France

during the examination of the case of G., A., G. and C. J.

by the Committee of Ministers

Section 326-3 of the Code of Public Health was amended by the Act of 27 June 1990, i.e. at the time when the facts of the present case occured. According to the new provision, the person confined ex officio to a mental hospital shall be informed, immediately after her/his admission and, subsequently, at his or her request, of his/her legal situation and his/her rights. This provision ensures the communication to the person concerned of the reasons having led to his/her confinement in a mental hospital, and its application will avoid new violations of Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention similar to that found by the Committee of Ministers in this case.

As regards the non-respect of the requirement of a speedy examination of the applications for liberation provided for in Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Government recalls that the extension of the case-law concerning the State liability for the slowness of proceedings and the steps taken in terms of both structure and means so as to reduce the length of proceedings (see Resolution DH (98) 5 in the case of J.-C. C. against France) will allow to avoid the same kind of violation in future.

Moreover, the Commission’s report has been disseminated to the authorities directly concerned in order to draw their attention on their obligations under the Convention.

In view of the above, the Government is of the opinion that France has complied with its obligations under Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention in the present judgment.