Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> HENTRICH v. FRANCE (INTERPRETATION) - 13616/88 [1997] ECHR 43 (3 July 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1997/43.html
Cite as: (1997) 24 EHRR CD19, [1997] ECHR 43
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
In the case of Hentrich v. France (interpretation of the judgment
of 3 July 1995) (1),
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with
Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and Rule 57
para. 4 of Rules of Court A (2), as a Chamber composed of the following
judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr R. Bernhardt,
Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr J. De Meyer,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr L. Wildhaber,
Mr J. Makarczyk,
Mr D. Gotchev,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 May and 28 June 1997,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
1. The case is numbered 23/1993/418/497. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications
to the Commission.
2. Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry
into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only
to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They
correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as
amended several times subsequently.
_______________
PROCEDURE
1. The European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission")
submitted a request to the Court, under Rule 57 of Rules of Court A,
for interpretation of the judgment delivered on 3 July 1995 on the
application of Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50) in the case of
Hentrich v. France (Series A no. 320-A). The request, dated
8 July 1996, was filed on 10 July 1996, within the three-year period
laid down by Rule 57 para. 1, and was signed by Mr Krüger, the
Secretary to the Commission.
2. In accordance with paragraph 4 of that Rule, the request for
interpretation has been considered by the Chamber which gave the
aforementioned judgment, composed of the same judges. Subsequently
Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr R. Bernhardt and Mr D. Gotchev,
substitute judges, replaced Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr N. Valticos and
Mr S.K. Martens, who were unable to take part in the further
consideration of the case (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).
3. On 15 July 1996 the Registrar communicated the request to the
French Government ("the Government") and to the applicant and invited
them to submit any written comments by 18 October 1996, the time-limit
laid down by the President of the Chamber (Rule 57 para. 3).
The Registrar received the applicant's observations on
16 October 1996 and the Government's on 5 November 1996. The applicant
filed supplementary observations on 16 December 1996.
The Court decided to dispense with a hearing.
THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION
4. The case of Hentrich v. France originated in an application
against the French Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25
(art. 25) by a French national, Mrs Liliane Hentrich, on
14 December 1987.
5. On 12 July 1993 the Commission referred the case to the Court,
which gave judgment on 22 September 1994. The Court held that there
had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as the
applicant had not been able to mount an effective challenge to the
pre-emption of her property by the Revenue, and of Article 6 para. 1
of the Convention (art. 6-1) for want of a fair hearing and on account
of the length of the proceedings. It held that its judgment in itself
constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the alleged
non-pecuniary damage and reserved the question of the application of
Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50) as regards pecuniary damage,
inviting the Government and the applicant to inform it, within
three months, of any agreement they might reach. It also held that the
respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months,
56,075 French francs (FRF) in respect of costs and expenses.
6. In a judgment of 3 July 1995 the Court ruled on the remainder of
the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50). The operative
provisions read as follows:
"FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Holds by eight votes to one that the respondent State is to
pay the applicant, within three months,
800,000 (eight hundred thousand) French francs in respect
of pecuniary damage;
2. Holds unanimously that the respondent State is to pay the
applicant, within three months,
20,000 (twenty thousand) francs in respect of costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings under Article 50
(art. 50);
3. Holds unanimously that the respondent State is to pay the
applicant, within three months, statutory interest from
22 December 1994 on the sum of 56,075 francs awarded in the
principal judgment;
4. Dismisses by eight votes to one the remainder of the claim
for just satisfaction."
7. Mrs Hentrich twice wrote to the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, on 19 October 1995 to complain of the delay in
paying the just satisfaction - payment being made on 1 December 1995 -
and on 19 February 1996 to claim default interest on the sums awarded.
8. In a letter of 29 May 1996 she asked the President of the
Commission to lodge two requests with the Court, one for interpretation
and the other for revision of the judgment of 3 July 1995.
9. With reference to Rule 57 of Rules of Court A and to the
aforementioned letter, which it communicated to the Court, the
Commission put the following question to the Court:
"In view of point 3 of the operative provisions of the judgment
of 3 July 1995 and the practice followed by the Court since
January 1996, are points 1 and 2 of that judgment to be
interpreted as necessarily entailing an obligation on the
French Government to pay statutory interest in the event of
failure to pay within the three-month period laid down by the
Court the total sum of 820,558 francs awarded as just
satisfaction?"
It also indicated that it had not accepted the request for
revision.
AS TO THE LAW
10. Under the terms of Rule 57 of Rules of Court A:
"1. A Party or the Commission may request the interpretation of
a judgment within a period of three years following the delivery
of that judgment.
2. The request shall state precisely the point or points in the
operative provisions of the judgment on which interpretation is
required ...
..."
11. The Government argued that the request for interpretation was
inadmissible. It related to difficulties with the execution of a
judgment of the Court, which came within the exclusive competence of
the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and was in reality
designed to secure a variation of the clear, precise operative
provisions of the judgment of 3 July 1995 and thus amounted to a
request for revision in disguise.
They pointed out that the award made to the applicant in the
judgment of 3 July 1995 had, moreover, been paid on 1 December 1995,
only a few weeks after the deadline of 3 October 1995 had expired.
12. Mrs Hentrich maintained that the obligation to pay interest for
delay, which was also laid down in Article 1153-1 of the
French Civil Code, was a fundamental principle of law that was equally
binding on States, which themselves imposed penalties for delay, in
particular in relation to taxes.
13. The Court observes in the first place that, under the terms of
its judgment of 3 July 1995 and in accordance with Article 53 of the
Convention (art. 53), the respondent State was required to pay the
applicant the sums awarded within three months. However, these sums
were not paid until 1 December 1995, that is nearly two months after
expiry of the time-limit. Moreover, it is for the
Committee of Ministers to supervise execution of the judgment
(Article 54 of the Convention) (art. 54). The Court further notes that
it did not stipulate in its judgment that default interest was to be
paid in the event of delayed settlement.
14. In point 3 of the operative provisions of the judgment of
3 July 1995 the Court did no more than direct the respondent State to
pay interest on the costs and expenses it was required to reimburse
pursuant to the judgment of 22 September 1994. In doing so the Court
was allowing a request expressly made by Mrs Hentrich which had not
been contested by the Government.
15. The practice of awarding default interest for delayed settlement
was not introduced by the Court until January 1996.
16. That being so, and in view of the clear wording of the operative
provisions of the judgment of 3 July 1995, to allow the application for
interpretation would not be to clarify "the meaning and scope" of that
judgment but rather to modify it in respect of an issue which the Court
decided "with binding force" (see the Allenet de Ribemont v. France
judgment of 7 August 1996 (interpretation), Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1996-III, p. 911, para. 23).
Accordingly, there is no matter for interpretation within the
meaning of Rule 57 of Rules of Court A.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
Rejects by eight votes to one the request for interpretation.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing
in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 3 July 1997.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 of the Convention
(art. 51-2) and Rule 53 para. 2 of Rules of Court A, the dissenting
opinion of Mr De Meyer is annexed to this judgment.
Initialled: R.R.
Initialled: H.P.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER
(Translation)
In its judgment of 3 July 1995 the Court did not expressly rule
on the question of any interest that might have been due on the amounts
awarded for (a) pecuniary damage and (b) costs and expenses relating
to the Article 50 proceedings (art. 50), but clearly stated that those
amounts had to be paid "within three months", that is to say before
3 October 1995.
In the same judgment, moreover, the Court awarded interest on the
sum of 56,075 French francs (FRF) already due under the principal
judgment, to run from 22 December 1994, that is from the date when the
three-month time-limit laid down in the judgment of 22 September 1994
expired.
In the present judgment the Court construes its judgment of
3 July 1995 as meaning that all claims for interest on the pecuniary
damage and on the costs and expenses of the Article 50 proceedings
(art. 50) had been dismissed.
I cannot agree with that construction.
Obviously the majority is free to interpret the judgment of
3 July 1995 as it deems appropriate.
For my part, I consider that that judgment does not preclude an
award of interest for the period subsequent to 3 October 1995.
As stated in paragraph 14 of the judgment, the Court only
dismissed the claim for interest - on both the costs of the
Article 50 proceedings (art. 50) and the costs of the proceedings on
the merits - in so far as it was sought to have that interest paid
retrospectively with effect from 22 September 1994.
However, in its judgment of 3 July 1995 the Court did award
interest on the costs and expenses of the proceedings on the merits
with effect from 22 December 1994, by which date the Government was
required to make payment pursuant to the judgment of 22 September 1994.
Indeed, there would be little point in the Court setting a
three-month time-limit for payment if there was no penalty for failure
to comply.
In accordance with the general principles on this subject, which
have been explicitly applied by the Court in all its judgments on
Article 50 (art. 50) since January 1996, and which, moreover, were
applied in the judgment of 3 July 1995 itself with respect to the costs
and expenses of the judgment on the merits, my view is that the
judgment of 3 July 1995 must be construed as containing an implied
award in favour of the applicant of interest at the statutory rate to
run from 3 October 1995 on both the sum of FRF 800,000 awarded for
pecuniary damage and the sum of FRF 20,000 relating to the
Article 50 proceedings (art. 50).