CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 19 décembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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)162 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Papon against France   (Application No. 54210/00, judgment of 25 July 2002, final on 25 October 2002)     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 once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a breach to the right of access of the applicant to a court on account of the forfeiture of his appeal on points of law in application of Article 583 of the code of criminal procedure, because he had not obtain an exemption from surrendering to custody and did not surrender to custody before the examination of his appeal on points of law;   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 taken note of the information given by the respondent state as regards the payment of the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Whereas there is no indication that, in the circumstances of the present case, the seizure of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant in payment of a fiscal debt due to the state, constitutes an unjustified interference in the applicant's rights according to the Convention and that in particular the Committee of Ministers noted that the applicant had authorised this seizure;   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 at the 897th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (12 October 2004), 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)162   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Papon against France     Introductory case summary   This case concerns a breach to the right of access of the applicant to a court on account of the forfeiture of his appeal on points of law in application of Article 583 of the code of criminal procedure, because he had not obtain an exemption from surrendering to custody and did not surrender to custody before the examination of his appeal on points of law.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total     29   192,68 EUR 29   192,68 EUR     The just satisfaction was seized for the payment of a fiscal debt of the applicant.   b) Individual measures   Section 89-I of Law No. 2000-516 of 15 June 2000 strengthening the protection of the presumption of innocence and victims' rights which modifies Article 626-1 of the Code of criminal proceedings provides that “review of a final criminal court decision may be requested on behalf of any person found guilty of an offence where it emerges from a judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights that sentence was passed in a manner violating the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or of the protocols thereto, if the nature and the gravity of the violation found are such as to subject the sentenced person to prejudicial consequences that could not be remedied by the just satisfaction awarded on the basis of Article 41 of the Convention.”   On the basis of this provision, Mr Papon requested a review of the proceedings pertaining to him.     II.   General measures   Section 121 of Law No. 2000-516 of 15 June 2000 strengthening the protection of the presumption of innocence and victims' rights abrogated Articles 583 and 583-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the forfeiture of the right to appeal on points of law for a person given a custodial sentence of more than six months, for failure to surrender to custody or in the absence of an exemption from surrendering to custody.   This law entered into force on 16 June 2000.     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 new, similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 December 2007 at the 1013th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies