CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 juin 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 } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s91C0FD73 { width:19.74%; 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 } .sB38F1429 { width:20.06%; 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 } .s6415302E { width:20.06%; 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 } .s49CD1423 { width:19.74%; 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 } .s879C31D9 { width:20.06%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s565AC76A { width:20.06%; 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 } .sBF4395F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:226.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s967B7690 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:198.45pt; 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 } .s1CF38E53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:191.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .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(2008)38 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Chaineux against France and in two other cases regarding length of certain proceedings before labour courts   Chaineux, Application No. 56243/00, judgment of 14 October 2003, final on 14 January 2004 Leclerq, Application No. 38398/97, judgment of 28 November 2000, final on 28 February 2001 Verhaeghe, Application No. 53584/99, judgment of 27 May 2003, final on 27 August 2003     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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the excessive length of proceedings related to civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken 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)38   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the case of Chaineux against France and in two other cases regarding civil proceedings before labour courts       Introductory case summary   These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).   In all these cases, the European Court recalled its case-law according to which labour disputes must be resolved particularly promptly, as they concern issues of major importance for people's professional situation.     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 Chaineux - 3   000 EUR - 3   000 EUR Paid on 06/04/2004 Leclerq - 40   000 francs 15   000 francs 45   000 francs Paid on 16/07/2001 interest paid on 19/04/02 Verhaeghe - 5   500 EUR - 5   500 EUR Paid on 12 /01/2004 interest paid on 19/07/04   b) Individual measures   In all these cases the domestic proceedings are closed.     II.   General measures   Specific measures have been taken to deal with the issue of length of civil proceedings before the conseils de prud'hommes (first-instance labour courts): the composition of the conseils de prud'hommes was modified by a decree of 2 May 2002 (entry into force December 2002). The number of staff is the same, but the judges have been reallocated to the different sections of the conseils de prud'hommes to take into account the evolution of the different types of dispute: a reduction of the numbers of conseillers in the agricultural and industrial sections was made to take into account a decrease in their activity and the other sections have had their means increased where needed.   There has therefore been a decrease in the average time required to reach a judgment before the conseils de prud'hommes (12 months in 2005) (see statistics in the Bulletin d'information statistique du Ministère de la Justice , «   Infostat justice », n o   86, March 2006 and in general on the website of the Ministry of Justice http://www.justice.gouv.fr/index.php?rubrique=10054 ).   Moreover, the measures taken to remedy to the length of civil proceedings in general (see the case of C.R. and other cases of length of civil proceedings CM/ResDH(2008)39), have benefited labour courts.   In particular, the Social Chamber of the Courts of appeal of Aix en Provence and Douai, which had a particularly heavy workload, have benefited from an increase in budget and staff.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, 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 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies