CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 avril 2007

.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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)37 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Annoni Di Gusola and Debordes and Omer against France   (Application No. 31819/96 and 33293/96, judgment of 14 November 2000, final on 14 February 2001)     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 referred to as “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 a breach of the applicants' right of access to a court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) on account of the decision of the President of the Cour de Cassation , under Article 1009-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to remove the applicants' appeals from that Court's list (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with France's 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 applicants 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 in the judgment, 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;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 760th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (23 July 2001),   DECLARES 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(2007)37   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Annoni Di Gusola and Debordes and Omer against France     Introductory case summary   This case concerns a breach of the applicants' right of access to a court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) on account of the decision of the President of the Cour de Cassation , under Article 1009-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to remove the applicants' appeals from that Court's list. This removal constituted a disproportionate hindrance to the applicants' right of access to the Cour de Cassation ; the President did not take sufficiently into consideration the applicant's financial situation in order to assess the issue of “manifestly unreasonable consequences” of the execution of the decision at issue.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - Annoni Di Gusola 100   000 FF Desbordes 50   000 FF Omer 50   000 FF Annoni Di Gusola 28   702FF Desbordes 14   904,50   FF Omer 14   904,50   FF 258   511 FF Paid on 2 and 6 March 2001   b) Individual measures   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the amount of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and the ground on which the Court took its decision on just satisfaction, no other measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures   The government of the respondent state recalls that the European Court considered that the procedure provided in Article 1009-1 of the New Code of Civil Procedure is compatible with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Moreover, the Court noted that the case law regarding that Article had considerably evolved. Thus, in particular, receipt of legal aid or minimum welfare benefit had become relevant criteria for a decision whether an order for the execution of the impugned decision would entail “manifestly unreasonable consequences” to the appellant.   The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Annoni Di Gusola, Desbordes and Omer was published, and commented on, in La semaine juridique Edition générale of 14 January 2001.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46 paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies