CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 janvier 2009

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)1 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Mehemi against France   (Application No. 25017/94, judgment of 26 September 1997, final on 26 September 1997)   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 to the Committee pursuant to Article 54 of the Convention;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a violation of the right to private and family life of the applicant, an Algerian national, who was the object of final order banning him from the territory of France following his conviction of drugs offences (violation of Article 8) (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 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 which are applicable, by decision of the Committee of Ministers to decisions transmitted pursuant to former Article 54;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant 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 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 783rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (6 March 2002), 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(2009)1   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Mehemi against France     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the right to private and family life of the applicant, an Algerian national, who was the object of final order banning him from the territory of France following his conviction of drugs offences (violation of Article 8) .   The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention by reference to fact that the applicant had no links with Algeria but strong bonds with France, and the fact that the outright ban against him would result in his separation from his wife and small children.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 50   000 FF 50   000 FF Paid within the time-limit set     b) Individual measures   Following the European Court’s judgement the applicant, who had been expelled to Algeria, was authorised to return to France and to live there.   On 25 February 1998, he received a special visa authorising his return and was subject to a compulsory residence order, this last being a necessary condition for applying to have the ban lifted.   On 24 March 1998, the Lyons Appeal Court, seised of Mr Mehemi’s request to lift the banning order, replaced the outright ban by a ban limited to 10 years. This decision was confirmed by the court of Cassation on 26   May 1999.   The ten-year ban expired on 10 July 2001.   On 31 October 2001 the compulsory residence order against Mr Mehemi was lifted. He was issued a residence certificate bearing the word “ salarié ” (“employee”) (see also the judgement in Mehemi No. 2 No. 53470/99 of 10/04/2003).   II.   General measures   On 17 November 1999 the Garde des sceaux (Minister of Justice) sent a circular on “Criminal policy with regard to the imposition and lifting of exclusion orders” to prosecutors at appeal courts and at regional courts and the first presidents of the same courts.   The circular (reference NOR: JUSD9930176C ) recalls the importance of the right to private and family life set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European court’s case-law in this area and mentions in particular certain passages in the Mehemi judgment of 26 September 1997.   In addition, the Court’s judgment was published and commented upon, in particular in the Cahiers du CREDHO No. 10/2004.     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 former Article   54 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 January 2009 at the 1043rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies