CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 mai 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s4AB489F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:20pt } .sD8D566C3 { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .s4ECD4776 { margin-top:104.85pt; margin-left:180.8pt; position:absolute } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } RESOLUTION DH (97) 190 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 21844/93 BOULÉ MICHEL II AGAINST FRANCE   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 May 1997 at the 590th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   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 29 November 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 9   March 1993 by Mr Michel Boulé against France (Application No. 21844/93);   Whereas on 11 January 1996 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, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 17   May   1995, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by twelve votes to one, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   Whereas at the 567th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 25 June 1996, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article   32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 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 24 May 1996;   Whereas at the 571st meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held, by a decision adopted on 13 September 1996, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph   2, of the Convention, that the Government of France was to pay the applicant’s daughter as just satisfaction, within three months, the sum of 20 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage and that interest should be payable on any non-paid sum at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest will accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment is placed at the disposal of the applicant;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of France to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 25 June and 13   September   1996, having regard to France’s obligation under Article   32, paragraph   4, of the Convention to abide by them;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of France accordingly indicated that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that by 9   December 1996, within the time-limit set, the Government of France had paid the applicant’s daughter the sum of 20 000 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 of the Convention in this case;   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.