European Court of Human Rights

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)96¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Société Proma di Franco Gianotti against France

(Application No. 25971/94, Interim Resolution DH (99) 556 of 8 October 1999)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”),

Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (99) 556 adopted on 8 October 1999 in which the Committee of Ministers held that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; that the applicant company had not actually had a fair hearing of its case before a court of appeal which, having rejected a request for postponement of the hearing, had examined the case on the merits without inviting the applicant company to make its submissions concerning the merits although it had received a verbal assurance that only the question of jurisdiction would be dealt with; that the Committee of Ministers also authorised the publication of the Commission’s report;

Whereas, at the 695th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held, by a decision adopted on 14 February 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 40 000 francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay; whereas, at its 721st meeting the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held, by a decision adopted on 2 October 2000, pursuant to former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was also to pay the applicant, within three months, 49 901 francs in respect of costs and expenses, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 8 October 1999, 14 February 2000 and 2 October 2000, having regard to France’s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of former Article 32 of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the decisions of the Committee of Ministers of 14 February and 2 October 2000 (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded, 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 having regard to the decision taken at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (3 April 2007), that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case, and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)96

Information about the measures taken in the case of

Société Proma di Franco Gianotti against France

Introductory case summary

The case concerns a breach of the right to a fair hearing before a court of appeal which had refused the applicant company’s request for postponement of the hearing and examined the case on the merits without inviting the applicant company to make its submissions concerning the merits (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The applicant was awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses incurred. Having regard to the circumstances, no other individual measure seems necessary.

II. General measures

The Commission’s report was circulated to the courts. No other general measure seems necessary in this case.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under former Article 32 of the Convention.