CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.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 } .s764685BC { margin-left:0.95pt; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBD4F1DF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:8.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s93E802E5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAB756451 { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s5D36E1CE { width:26.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85C62969 { margin-left:45.97pt; padding-left:24.93pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s28EFCB81 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)5 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Bayle and Carabasse against France   (Bayle case: application No. 45840/99, judgment of 25 September 2003, final on 25 December 2003; Carabasse case: application No. 59765/00, judgment of 18 January 2005, final on 18 April 2005)     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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the infringement of the applicants' right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1), on account of the disproportionate nature of decisions to strike their appeals out of the roll of the Cour de cassation , on the grounds that they had not paid a fine ordered by the Court of Appeal (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 judgments;   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 the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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 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   - general measures preventing, similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.       Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)5   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Bayle and Carabasse against France     Introductory case summary   These cases concern infringements of the applicants' right of access to a court (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1). In 1998 and 1999, their appeals on points of law were struck from the roll of the Cour de cassation by its First President under Article 1009-1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that they had not complied - or not fully complied - with pecuniary orders made by the respective Courts of Appeal. Their subsequent applications for restoration of their appeals to the Cour de cassation roll were denied (in July 2000 and November 2002 for Bayle, and in May 2000 for Carabasse).   In reaching the conclusion that the decision to strike the applicants' appeals out of the roll had been a disproportionate measure, the European Court took account, among other things, of their financial situation: they were unable to pay all the sums concerned.   In the Bayle case, the Court also took account of the fact that, notwithstanding the applicant's unfavourable financial situation, her desire to comply with the judgment had been evidenced by the fact that she had paid a substantial sum in partial execution; moreover, regarding the Cour de cassation 's case-law on the issue before it, her appeal had good prospects of success.   In the Carabasse case, the European Court also took account of the applicant's advanced age, a “determining element” in the case. Furthermore, according to the Court, the decisions striking out the appeal and confirming the striking-out were not reasoned so as to make it possible to ascertain that the First President of the Cour de cassation had examined the applicant's situation effectively or completely.     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total BAYLE 45840/99 - 5   000 euros 1   840 euros 6   840 euros Paid on 6 April 2004, with interest CARABASSE 59765/00 - 12   000 euros 4   200 euros 16   200 euros Paid on 13 September 2005, with interest   b) Individual measures                     Bayle case   Following the European Court's judgment, the applicant applied to the First President of the Cour de Cassation in order to reinstate the appeal on the roll. This has been accepted. Hence, it has been possible to begin the proceedings anew, before the 1st Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation .                     Carabasse case   The applicant died in 2003 and his widow and two daughters applied to resume the proceedings before the Cour de cassation as his heirs. However, because the applicant had been inactive for two years, the other party to the proceedings asked the First President to declare that these proceedings had lapsed. No appeal is possible in this respect (§ 33 of the judgment). This is why the applicant's heirs were obliged to pay the damages owing under the terms of the pecuniary sentence given at appeal (nearly 200 000 euros) by the judgment which could not be contested because of the violation of the Convention.   It is not possible, under French law, to have this case re-examined or re-opened, following the judgment of the European Court.   Nevertheless, two elements lead to the conclusion that no individual measure is necessary. First, the proceedings at issue resulted in establishing certain rights to the benefit of a third party of good faith (a person to whom Mr Carabasse had been ordered to pay damages), who deserves protection according to the principle of legal certainty. Secondly, the applicant heirs made no request at the stage of the execution of the European Court's judgment.     II.   General measures   In these cases, the European Court did not call Article 1009-1 of the New Code of Civil Procedure into question, but rather its implementation by the judge.   These cases present similarities to that of Annoni di Gussola and others against France (judgment of 14   November   2000), in which the Court had already found a similar violation. In this case, general measures had been taken as from January 2001, in particular the publication of the judgment with a view to facilitating its direct application in national case-law [2] .   However, similar violations occurred after the adoption of these measures, including in the Bayle case, as well as in more recent judgments, in particular Cour against France (judgment of 3   October   2006 - application for restoration of the appeals to the roll denied in February 2002) and Ong against France (judgment of 14 November 2006 - application for restoration of the appeals to the roll denied in June   2002), the following complementary measures were adopted:   The particular attention of the First President of the Cour de cassation , who is the authority competent to strike out a case from the roll, has been drawn to this judgment through a note disseminating the judgments delivered by the European Court, sent by the Ministry of Justice. He is in a position to apply the relevant national provisions in the light of the requirements of the Convention.   Furthermore, in view of the fact that the decision to strike out a case from the roll is always delivered following advice of the Prosecutor General, the Carabasse judgment was transmitted to the Prosecutor General of the Cour de cassation (as well as to the Prosecutors General of the Bourges and Orleans Courts of Appeal), so that they can deliver their advice on the issue taking due account of the requirements of the Convention.   Finally, these judgments were published on the web site of the Ministry of Justice, accessible to all Courts and all the directorates and departments of the Ministry of Justice. The European Court's case-law on Article 1009-1 of the New Code of Civil Procedure has also been detailed in a publication of the Cour de cassation 's European Law Observatory ( Observatoire de Droit Européen ), called “ La Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme - 2006 - Arrêts concernant la France et leurs commentaries ” (available on the Internet site of the Cour de cassation ). Finally, commentaries of these judgments have been published in law journals widely disseminated at national level.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the individual measures taken in the Bayle case have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation, and that no individual measure is necessary in the Carabasse case. The Government further considers that the general measures will prevent new, similar violations. Consequently, it considers that France has complied with its obligations under Article   46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies [2] Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)37 adopted on 20/04/2007 by the Committee of Ministers, in view of its decision taken at its 760th meeting (23/07/2001).