CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 septembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s26CDE78A { height:13.5pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s166AB0A7 { height:14.25pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)99 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Koua Poirrez against France   (Application No. 40892/98, judgment of 30 September 2003, final on 30 December 2003)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the discriminatory rejection by the competent authorities of the application made by the applicant in May 1990 for a disabled adult’s allowance (violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken in the Koua Poirrez case at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (29 November 2005), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)99   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Koua Poirrez against France     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the rejection by the competent authorities of the application made by the applicant in May 1990 for a disabled adult’s allowance (AAH). The authorities rejected the application on the ground that the applicant was a national of Côte d’Ivoire, in accordance with Article 821-1 of the Code of Social Security, which excludes from entitlement to this benefit the nationals of countries which have not signed a reciprocity agreement with France in this field. Starting from 17/12/1991, the applicant received the minimum welfare benefit (RMI).   The Court found that the refusal to award the applicant a disabled adult’s allowance constituted a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 20   000 EUR 3   000 EUR 23   000 EUR Paid on 18/03/2004   b) Individual measures   Following a change in the law on 11 May 1998 (see general measures below), the applicant submitted a fresh application and secured the payment of a disabled adult’s allowance as from 01/06/1998. Where the previous period is concerned, the Court found that he “undoubtedly suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage” and awarded him the sum of 20   000 EUR in respect of all heads of damage.   Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   The Act of 11 May 1998 on entry of foreign nationals into France, their residence in the country and the right of asylum (Act No 98-439) abolished the contested nationality requirement.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that France have thus complied with their obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.