RESOLUTION DH (97) 4

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION No. 21245/93

KADA AGAINST FRANCE

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 January 1997

at the 582nd 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 6 September 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 16 October 1992 by Mr Alain Kada against France (Application No. 21245/93) ;

Whereas on 7 November 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, as declared admissible by the Commission on 5 April 1995, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings ;

Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by ten votes to three, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention ;

Whereas, at the 559th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 22 March 1996, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, 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 19 April 1996 ;

Whereas, at the 571st meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held, by a decision adopted on 13 September 1996, 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, 50 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 10 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 60 000 French francs and that interest should be payable on any non-paid sum 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 22 March 1996 and 13 September 1996, 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 France gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution ;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers has satisfied itself that within the time-limit set, the Government of France paid the applicant the total sum of 60 000 French francs as just satisfaction, payment confirmed by the applicant's lawyer on 13 November 1996,

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 (97) 4

Information provided by the Government of France

during the examination of the case of Kada

by the Committee of Ministers

The report of the Commission has been distributed to the relevant courts, according to a practice established by the Government of France in similar cases.

The Government is of the opinion that this practice will prevent the repetition of the kind of violation found in the present case and considers that it has accordingly fulfilled its obligations under Article 32 of the Convention.