BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Crochard and 6 other cases v France - 68255/01 [2011] ECHR 1258 (8 June 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1258.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1258 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Resolution
CM/ResDH(2011)611
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Crochard and 6 other cases against France
Crochard (Application No. 68255/01, Marchal (application No. 68256/01, Odant (application No. 68257/01, Sudey (application No. 68258/01), Flouret (application No. 68259/01), Sylla (application No. 68260/01), Richard (application No. 68261/01), judgment of 3 February 2004, final on 14 June 2004)
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 once it had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the right to a fair trial before the employment chamber of the Court of Cassation due to the failure to communicate to the parties of whole or part of the reporting judge’s report and of the advocate general’s submissions, as well as to the impossibility for the parties to reply to them (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 its 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 satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants 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 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) and considering the decision taken at the 897th meeting (28 September 2004) and the 955th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (7-8 February 2006), 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(2011)61
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of
Crochard and 6 other cases against France
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a breach of the right to a fair trial before the Court of Cassation due to the failure to communicate to the parties of whole or part of the reporting judge’s report and of the advocate general’s submissions, as well as to the impossibility for the parties to reply to them (violation of Article 6§1).
I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
|
Name and number of application |
Pecuniary damage |
Non-pecuniary damage |
Costs and expenses |
Total |
|
|
Crochard - No. 68255/01 |
|
|
1500 EUR |
1500 EUR |
|
|
Paid on 22/11/2004, interest paid on 15/6/2005 |
|||||
|
Marchal - No. 68256/01 |
|
|
1500 EUR |
1500 EUR |
|
|
Paid on 22/11/2004, interest paid on 15/6/2005 |
|||||
|
Odant - No. 68257/01 |
|
|
1500 EUR |
1500 EUR |
|
|
Paid on 22/11/2004, interest paid on 15/6/2005 |
|||||
|
Sudey - No. 68258/01 |
|
|
1500 EUR |
1500 EUR |
|
|
Paid on 22/11/2004, interest paid on 15/6/2005 |
|||||
|
Flouret – No. 68259/01 |
|
|
1500 EUR |
1500 EUR |
|
|
Paid on 22/11/2004 |
|||||
|
Sylla - No. 68260/01 |
|
|
1500 EUR |
1500 EUR |
|
|
Paid on 22/11/2004, interest paid on 15/6/2005 |
|||||
|
Richard - No. 68261/01 |
|
|
1500 EUR |
1500 EUR |
|
|
Paid on 22/11/2004 |
|||||
b) Individual measures
The just satisfaction awarded to the applicants has been paid. In addition, as also noted by the Court in its judgment, it does not emerge from the circumstances of the case that the absence of disclosure of the facts, of the procedure and of the reporting judge’s grounds of appeal before the Court of Cassation had any kind of influence on the outcome of the proceedings. Finally, the Court considered that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.
Therefore no individual measure, besides payment of just satisfaction, was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II. General measures
The Court of Cassation has modified its procedures for investigating and hearing cases.
The reporting judge’s report, which identifies the legal issue at stake in the case, is now sent with the case file to the public prosecutor and to the parties.
The opinion on the decision to be issued and the draft judgments suggested by the reporting judge during the deliberations of the Court of Cassation are neither communicated to the advocates general nor to the parties.
Advocates general no longer attend either the pre-hearing preparatory meeting or the deliberations.
In addition, it should be noted that, prior to the hearing, the parties’ counsel are provided with the advocate general’s submissions and are entitled to reply to them orally or in a note sent for the court’s deliberation. The European Court considered, in its judgments in Reinhardt and Slimane-Kaïd of 31 March 1998 and Slimane Kaïd of 25 January 2000, that such a practice provided the parties with an opportunity to take cognizance of the submissions and reply to them under satisfactory conditions.
These measures put an end to the imbalance identified by the European Court in the investigation and hearing procedures before the Court of Cassation.
III. Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case apart from payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent 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 8 June 2011 at the 1115th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies