GODARD AND EGRON AGAINST FRANCE

Doc ref: 10882/84 • ECHR ID: 001-49302

Document date: February 13, 1991

Doc ref: 10882/84 • ECHR ID: 001-49302

Document date: February 13, 1991

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 13 March 1984

by Mrs Georgette Godard and Mrs Geneviève Egron against France

(Application No. 10882/84);

Whereas on 15 November 1989 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 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 their application the applicants complained inter alia

of the excessive length of administrative proceedings to have

land reallocations set aside;

Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on

18 January 1989 as regards the above-mentioned complaint and in

its report adopted on 12 October 1989 expressed unanimously the

opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6,

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

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in

accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the

Convention;

Having examined the proposals made by the Commission concerning

just satisfaction for the applicants and taking note of the fact

that the applicants refused their agreement to the payment of

damages,

Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of

Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention that there

has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the

Convention in this case;

Decides that the finding of a violation constitutes adequate just

satisfaction in this case;

Decides, therefore, that no further action is called for in this

case.

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant