The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 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 12 October 1994 by the European

Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the

Convention relating to the applications lodged respectively on 10 June 1992 and

27 November 1992 by

Mr Francis Vanverberghe against France (Applications Nos. 20386/92 and

21074/92);

Whereas on 15 November 1994 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 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without

the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in

pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;

Whereas in his applications, as declared admissible by the Commission on

11 May 1994, the applicant complained of the excessive length of his detention

on remand and of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings;

Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by twelve votes to one,

the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-

3), of the Convention, unanimously, that no separate question arose under

Article 6, paragraph 2

(art. 6-2), of the Convention and, by twelve votes to one, that there had been a

violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;

Whereas, at the 534th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 7 April

1995 the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the

Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32,

paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been a violation of Article 5,

paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention and that there had been in this case a

violation of Article 6, paragraph 1

(art. 6-1), 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

15 September 1995;

Whereas, on 19 October 1995, at the 546th meeting of the Deputies, the

Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art.

32-2), of the Convention, that the Government of France was to pay the applicant

as just satisfaction, within three months, 55 000 French francs in respect of

non-pecuniary damage and 30 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses,

namely a total sum of 85 000 French francs;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to

inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 7 April 1995 and 19

October 1995, having regard to France's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4

(art. 32-4), 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 satisfied itself that the Government of

France paid the applicant the total sum of

85 000 French francs as just satisfaction, payment confirmed by letter dated 11

March 1996,

Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of

France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 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) 122

Information provided by the Government of France

during the examination of the Vanverberghe case

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 similar violations as found in the present case.