CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 avril 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 } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; 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)56 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 4 cases against France regarding the right to a fair trial before the Cour de cassation (case-law Slimane-Kaïd and Meftah)   (see details in Appendix)   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 breaches of the right to a fair trial before the Cour de cassation due to the failure to communicate, in whole or in part, the report of the reporting judge ( conseiller rapporteur ) to parties (represented or not by a lawyer, according to the cases) (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1), as well as, in two cases, the presence of the advocate-general at the deliberations (violation 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 its 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(2009)56   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in 4 cases against France regarding the right to a fair trial before the Cour de cassation (case-law Slimane-Kaïd and Mefthah)     Introductory case summary   These cases (se list below) concern a breach to the right to a fair trial before criminal, civil or social chambers of the Cour de cassation due to failure to communicate, in whole or in part, the report of the reporting judge (conseiller rapporteur) to parties (the applicants themselves and/or their lawyers) (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).   The cases of Deshayes (No.1) and Fenech also concern the presence of the Advocate-General at the deliberations of the Cour de cassation (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Judgment of Final on Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Paid on Deshayes No. 1 (66701/01) 28/02/2006 28/05/2006     500 euros 13/09/2006 (+ interest) Fenech (71445/01) 30/11/2004 28/02/2005     2   652,80 euros 31/05/2005 Ledru (38615/02) 06/12/2007 06/03/2008 No just satisfaction Beloff (24252/04) 22/05/2008 22/08/2008 No just satisfaction     b) Individual measures   Cases concerning proceedings before the criminal chamber of the Cour de cassation in which the applicants had lodged a civil action (Deshayes (No.1) and Fenech)   In both cases, the charges were dropped or the accused person was discharged.   In the Deshayes (No.1) case, the applicant requested before the European Court just satisfaction only in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained but the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in this respect.   In the Fenech case, the applicant requested before the European Court just satisfaction only in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained; the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in this respect. The applicant also requested just satisfaction for pecuniary damage (according to her, the violation caused her depression, amounting to a loss of the possibility of keeping her job); the Court rejected this request, as it could not speculate as to what the outcome of the proceedings would have been in the absence of a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1. In view of the circumstances of the case, no other individual measure appeared necessary.   Cases concerning civil proceedings before civil or social chambers of the Cour de cassation (Ledru and Beloff)   In both cases, the European Court found that there was no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damages allegedly sustained by the applicants; so it rejected these requests. Concerning the non ‑ pecuniary damage, the Court held that it was sufficiently redressed by the finding of violations.   Thus no individual measures appeared necessary in these cases.     II.   General measures   The Cour de cassation has changed the way in which it investigates and determines matters submitted to it. In particular: advisory reports drafted by the judge rapporteur ( conseiller rapporteur ) are communicated with the file to both the prosecution and the parties, and Advocates General no longer take part in preparatory conferences or in the deliberations of the Bench (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)13 in the case of Slimane Kaïd against France and 5 other cases regarding the right to a fair trial before the Cour de cassation).   Moreover, specific measures have been adopted so that parties not represented by counsel may have access to the same information as they would have if they had counsel, irrespective of their place of residence (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)71 in the case of Meftah and others and 25 other cases against France regarding the right to a fair trial before the Cour de cassation).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted 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 2 April 2009 at the1051st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies