CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 17 juin 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Resolution ResDH(2003)87 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 September 2000 in the case of Guisset against France   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 June 2003 at the 841st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Guisset case delivered on 26 September 2000 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 33933/96) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 May 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr   Jean ‑ Claude   Guisset, a French national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the determination of a criminal charge and the lack of public hearing before the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission, on 6 March 1999;   Whereas in its judgment of 26 September 2000 the Court:   -   held, by six votes to one, that the applicant could claim to be a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention;   - held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing before the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court;   -   held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings ;   -   held, by five votes to two, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 100 000 French francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 40 000 French francs in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 2,74% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 26 September 2000, having regard to France’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case, notably referring to a judgment delivered on 30   October 1998 (in the Lorenzi case) by the Conseil d'Etat , which held that, in cases similar to that of the applicant, the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court must hold a public hearing; and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 15 December 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 26 September 2000,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.