Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)124[1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Martinie, Richard-Dubarry and Siffre, Ecoffet and Bernardini against France

(Application No. 58675/00, judgment of 12 April 2006 - Grand Chamber

Application No. 53929/00, judgment of 1 June 2004, final on 1 September 2004

Application No. 49699/99+, judgment of 12 December 2006, final on 12 March 2007,
rectified on 27 March 2007)

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 concerns breaches of the right to fair trial due to the lack of a public hearing and the prosecutor’s position in proceedings before the Court of Audit as well as the Government Commissioner’s presence in deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat in the Martinie case and the excessive length of civil proceedings in the financial courts (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1),

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 of the Court,

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 has paid the applicants the just satisfaction for which the judgments provided (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of a violation 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 violation and erase its 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(2010)124

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Martinie, Richard-Dubarry and Siffre, Ecoffet and Bernardini against France

Introductory case summary

These cases mainly concern proceedings before financial courts (regional boards of audit/Chambres régionales des comptes and the Court of Audit/Cour des comptes) responsible among other things for exercising judicial supervision over the regularity of transactions carried out by public financial administrators. The proceedings at issue in these cases concern civil rights and obligations.

The Martinie case concerns infringements of the right to a fair trial in proceedings before the Court of Audit (1998) against the former financial administrator of a secondary school and of an organisation without legal personality dependant on the secondary school’s budget (violations of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that the applicant had had no opportunity to request a public hearing before the Court of Audit. It also noted an imbalance in his disfavour stemming from the prosecutor’s role in the proceedings. The Court also found a violation of the right to a fair trial before the Conseil d’Etat (1999) due to the presence of the Government Commissioner at the deliberation of the trial bench (violation of Article 6§1). On this last point, the Court reaffirmed its case-law in the Kress case (judgment of 07/06/2001, Grand Chamber).

The cases of Richard-Dubarry and Siffre, Ecoffet and Bernardini concern the excessive length of proceedings before financial courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the Richard-Dubarry case, four sets of proceedings began in November and December 1994 and were still pending when the European Court gave its judgment (nearly 9½ years). In the Siffre, Ecoffet and Bernardini case, the proceedings lasted from 1995 to 2000.

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

Martinie (58675/00)

9 338.54 euros

Paid on 24/07/2006

Richard-Dubarry (53929/00)

12 000 euros

Paid on 29/11/2004

Siffre, Ecoffet and Bernardini (49699/99+)

12 000 euros

9 000 euros

21 000 euros

Paid on 12/06/2007

b) Individual measures

1. Martinie case

Before the European Court, the applicant claimed a sum of 762.25 euros (see §§12 and 57 of the judgment) plus interest at the statutory rate, in respect of the sum still owed by him at the end of the domestic proceedings which had led to reduction/remission of the amount which the applicant had been ordered to pay to the school in respect of disbursements carried out on behalf of the establishment.

Where this possible pecuniary damage was concerned, the European Court consider