Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)142

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
SARL Aborcas against France

(Application No. 59423/00, judgment of 30 May 006, final on 30 August 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 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 a breach of the right of access to a court (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, within the time-limit set, 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 the decision taken in the SARL Aborcas case at the 1065th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (15 September 2009), 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)142

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

Introductory case summary

The case concerns a breach of the applicant company’s right of access to a court. Having wrongly considered that the applicant company had not joined certain proceedings as a civil party (which it had actually done in 1997), the Court of Appeal (1998) and the Cour de Cassation (1999) prevented it from using an existing and available remedy (violation of Article 6§1).

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
-	1 000 EUR	100 EUR	1 100 EUR	
Paid on 13/11/2006	

b) Individual measures

The Court awarded the applicant company just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant company also claimed the sum of 1.500 EUR in respect of pecuniary damage resulting from the loss sustained while its manager was in police custody, and damages for loss of enjoyment of a video-recorder which had been stolen. On this point, the Court considered there were no causality between the violation found and the alleged pecuniary damage (§40).
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

The Court’s judgment was sent to the First President of the Cour de Cassation and the Principle State Prosecutor at that court. A summary of the judgment has also been posted by the Observatory of European Law since July 2007 on the website of the Cour de Cassation, where it can easily be accessed by all courts.
Given that in this case the violation results from the particular circumstances of the case, these publication and dissemination measures are sufficient for the purpose of executing the judgment.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that it has executed the judgment in that it has taken individual measures to redress as far as possible the prejudice sustained by the applicant and in that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has accordingly fulfilled its obligations pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.