Search
document

Document text Analytics

EPLER AGAINST FRANCE

Doc ref: 15891/89 • ECHR ID: 001-49595

Document date: October 19, 1995

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

EPLER AGAINST FRANCE

Doc ref: 15891/89 • ECHR ID: 001-49595

Document date: October 19, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

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 by the European

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

of the Convention relating to the application lodged on

17 November 1989 by Mr George Epler against France

(Application No. 15891/89);

Whereas on 31 August 1993 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 application, declared admissible by the

Commission on 13 February 1992, the applicant complained of the

excessive length of certain civil proceedings and of a breach of

his right to a peaceful enjoyment of his possessions;

Whereas in its report adopted on 30 June 1993 the Commission

expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation

of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention and that no

question arose under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);

Whereas, at the 505th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held

on 6 January 1994, 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 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 20 May 1994;

Whereas, at the 517th meeting of the Deputies held

on 20 September 1994, 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, 50 000 French francs in

respect of non-pecuniary damage and 15 000 French francs in respect

of costs and expenses, that is a total sum of 65 000 French francs;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of

France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions

of 6 January and 20 September 1994, 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

on 4 August 1995 at the latest the Government of France paid the

applicant the total sum of 65 000 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 (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 (95) 217

Information provided by the Government of France

during the examination of the case of Epler

by the Committee of Ministers

The report of the Commission has been diffused 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 violations similar to

the one found in the present case.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant