European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Societe de Gestion du Port de Campoloro & Anor v France - 57516/00 [2010] ECHR 1434 (15 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1434.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1434

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)88¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro and société fermière de Campoloro against France

(Application No. 57516/00, judgment of 26 September 2006, final on 6/12/2006)

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 violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern a breach of the applicant companies’ right to a court due to the failure to enforce certain 1992 administrative court judgments awarding them compensation following the annulment by a municipal council of contracts concluded with them; violation of the applicant companies’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1); as well as the impossibility for the applicant companies to obtain enforcement of these judgments for which no justification has been put forward (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 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 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), 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)88

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro and société fermière de Campoloro against France

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the failure to enforce certain 1992 judgments by administrative courts awarding compensation to the applicant companies following the annulment by a municipal council of certain contracts concluded with them. Failure to enforce these court decisions, depriving Article 6§1 of any effectiveness, is considered to be a violation of the right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1).

In this respect, the European Court observed in particular that the government’s arguments based on the local authorities’ autonomy are ineffective in the light of the state’s international responsibility from the viewpoint of the Convention. The Court considered that, by non enforcing the above court decisions, the respondent State was responsible for violations found.

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant companies’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court considered that as a result of the impossibility of obtaining enforcement of these judgments – for which no justification has been put forward –the applicant companies bore and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	-	28 600 euros	28 600 euros
Paid on 22/06/2007

b) Individual measures

The Court considered that the payment by the state of the sums due pursuant to the 1992 domestic courts’ judgments would place the applicant parties as far as possible in a situation equivalent to that which would have obtained had the violations of Article 6§1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 not taken place.

Hence, the European Court concluded that the respondent state should pay the applicants or their successors these sums, including the interest until the day on which the judgment was delivered, plus any tax which might be chargeable on these sums. This has been done.

Concerning the question of taxes possibly payable by the Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro, the Minister responsible for the Budget said that "with a view to simplification, any sums that may be taxable in pursuance of this judgment will not be subject to tax for the partners (in the applicant company)". The French authorities specified that compensation received by way of damages and interest in pursuance of a court decision are not taxable in France.

Furthermore, the applicant companies’ lawyer expressly confirmed to the Committee of Ministers that the case was completely settled.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.

II. General measures

The European Court found both violations because the relevant authorities had not taken the necessary measures to enforce the national judicial decisions at issue. In view of the direct effect granted by these authorities to the Convention, the various measures taken to draw their attention to this judgment will suffice to avoid similar violations in future.

The judgment has appeared permanently since October 2008, together with a commentary, on the Intranet site of the Ministry of the Interior’s Office for European, International and Constitutional Law – Directorate of Civil Rights and Legal Affairs. This site is accessible to all staff of the Ministry and the external departments attached to it (central government service, prefectures, police). Furthermore, the judgment has been circulated to all the administrative courts (first instance and appeal) through the Conseil d’Etat intranet site and its legal documentation centre’s information service. It has also been sent out specifically to the courts and directorates of the Ministry of Justice with an interest in the case. All these measures affect the authorities with responsibilities in the enforcement of decisions delivered by administrative courts (see the section of the Court’s judgment on relevant domestic law and practice: Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents).

Furthermore, the judgment has since July 2007 appeared on the Court of Cassation’s Internet site (in the Observatoire du droit européen section) and appears in summary form in the Cour de cassation newsletter (Bulletin d’information de la Cour de cassation) No. 648 of 15 October 2006.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.