Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)127

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Vaney against France

(Application No. 53946/00, judgment of 30 November 2004, final on 28 February 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 judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings (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 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 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 its decision taken in the Vaney case at the 940th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (11 October 2005), 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(2010)127

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Vaney against France

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in 1984 (approximately 3 years and 11 months for the judicial investigation), in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
It also concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings brought by the applicant in 1989 pursuant to Article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation in order to complain about the length of criminal proceedings (more than 10 years and 2 months for five levels of jurisdiction), in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
In this respect, the European Court pointed out that domestic courts need to pay particular attention when action is taken to establish whether the state was responsible for the excessive length of previous judicial proceedings, in order to guarantee that such complaints are themselves examined within a reasonable time.

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
-	1 euro	5,000 EUR	5,001 EUR	
Paid on 27/05/2005	

b) Individual measures

No measure is necessary, in so far as the proceedings at issue are at an end. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

	1)	Concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings

This case has aspects in common with that of Etcheveste and Bidart (judgment of 21/03/2002), and some other similar cases, a case closed by Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)39 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. The judgments in these cases were considered to have been executed in view of the legislative measures adopted by the respondent state to reduce the length of criminal proceedings, particularly at the investigation stage. Inter alia, since Law No. 2000-516 of 15/06/2000 came into force, judicial inquiries have been subject to a proceedings schedule. Furthermore, new rights have been granted to parties to avoid the extension of proceedings.

	2)	Concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings

The judgment of the European Court was circulated to the departments concerned and to all courts, through all Courts of Appeal, each of which was responsible for circulation to its district. Such speedy circulation to the competent courts did in fact seem necessary in this case, insofar as the finding of excessive length of proceedings concerned a remedy which the Court had, in numerous previous judgements, deemed to be likely to make possible redress for an alleged violation of the right to a hearing "within a reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1. It should be pointed out in this context that the European Court did not call into question its case-law concerning the effectiveness of this remedy, but considered, in view of the particular circumstances of the case, that the applicant could not be required to have exhausted the remedy provided by Article L 781-1 in order to complain precisely of previous proceedings begun under this same provision.

Besides, reference should also be made to the case of C.R. against France, in which examination of general measures has been closed in view of the measures adopted by the respondent state in order to avoid new similar violations. The case of C.R. and nine other cases about the length of civil proceedings in civil courts were closed by Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)39 adopted by the Committee of Ministers at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, on 25 June 2004, of.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required, 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.