Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF PIERMONT AGAINST FRANCE

Doc ref: 15773/89;15774/89 • ECHR ID: 001-55643

Document date: November 20, 1995

Inbound citations: 7
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF PIERMONT AGAINST FRANCE

Doc ref: 15773/89;15774/89 • ECHR ID: 001-55643

Document date: November 20, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human

Rights in the Piermont case delivered on 27 April 1995 and

transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in two applications

(Nos. 15773/89 and 15774/89) against France, lodged with the

European Commission of Human Rights on 6 and 8 November 1989 under

Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Ms Dorothée Piermont, a

German national, and that the Commission declared admissible the

complaint that administrative measures taken against her in French

Polynesia and New Caledonia had infringed Article 2 of

Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) to the Convention on account of a failure to

respect her right to liberty of movement on French territory,

Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention because her freedom of

expression had been hindered, and Articles 10 and 14 (art. 14+10)

of the Convention taken together on account of discrimination on

the grounds of national origin;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 11 March 1994;

Whereas in its judgment of 27 April 1995 the Court:

- held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 2

of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) to the Convention as regards the measure

taken in French Polynesia;

- held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 2

of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) to the Convention as regards the measure

taken in New Caledonia;

- held by five votes to four that there had been a breach of

Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the measure taken

in French Polynesia;

- held by five votes to four that there had been a breach of

Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention as regards the measure taken

in New Caledonia;

- held unanimously that it was unnecessary to consider the

case under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with

Article 10 (art. 14+10);

- held unanimously that the respondent state was to pay

80 000 (eighty thousand) French francs in respect of costs and

expenses;

- dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just

satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of

Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the

Convention;

Having invited the Government of France to inform it of the

measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of

27 April 1995, having regard to France's obligation under

Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

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

judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this

resolution;

Having satisfied itself that on 28 August 1995, the Government

of France paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment

of 27 April 1995,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied

by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions

under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 255

Information provided by the Government of France

during the examination of the case of Piermont

by the Committee of Ministers

The judgment of the Court has been published in the Bulletin

d'information de la Cour de cassation. In addition, it has been

distributed to the local authorities in New Caledonia and French

Polynesia.

The French Government is of the opinion that these measures

will contribute efficiently to ensuring that the interpretation of

Article 7 of the act of 1849 and of the High Commissioner's general

police powers will henceforth take into account the considerations

emphasised by the Court in its judgment.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant