RESOLUTION DH (96) 567

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION No. 19158/91

DE GERANDO M.-P., G. AND C. AGAINST FRANCE

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 November 1996

at the 576th 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 22 February 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 14 July 1991 by Ms Marie-Pierre De Gerando, Mr Guillaume De Gerando and Ms Chantal De Gerando against France (Application No. 19158/91) ;

Whereas on 29 March 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 their application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 29 June 1994, the applicants complained of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages and the excessive length of certain subsequent civil proceedings for damages ;

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 542nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, in a decision adopted on 11 September 1995, 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 applicants, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 26 January 1996 ;

Whereas at the 564th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held, in a decision adopted on 15 May 1996, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of France was to pay jointly the applicants as just satisfaction, within three months, 60 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 20 000 French francs in respect of costs incurred before domestic courts and 20 000 French francs for the costs incurred before the Commission namely a total sum of 100 000 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 11 September 1995 and 15 May 1996, having regard to France's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them ;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that within the time-limit set, the Government of France paid the applicants the total sum of 100 000 French francs as just satisfaction, payment confirmed by an applicants' letter dated 27 July 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 (96) 567

Information provided by the Government of France

during the examination of the case of De Gerando M.-P., G. and C.

by the Committee of Ministers

The report of the Commission has been distributed to the competent 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 had accordingly fulfilled its obligations under Article 32 of the Convention.