Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)126

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Mattei and Miraux against France

(Application No. 34043/02, judgment of 19 December 2006, final on 19 March 2007)
(Application No. 73529/01, judgment of 26 September 2006, final on 12 February 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 concern the breach of the right to a fair trial during criminal proceedings against the applicants (violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 b) (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 judgments;

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 judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations 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 violations and erase their 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), and in view of its decision taken in the Mattei and Miraux 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 these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)126

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Mattei and Miraux against France

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the breach of the right to a fair trial during proceedings (closed in 2002 and 1999) against the applicants, due to the requalification of the charges against them at a belated stage of the proceedings (at the time of the deliberations in the Court of Appeal (Mattei) and in the Assize Court (Miraux)) without sufficient procedural guarantees (violations of Article 6§§1 and 3 a and b).
The European Court did not contest the fact that criminal and appeal courts are entitled to modify charges. On the other hand, defendants have the right to be informed of such modifications "with an extreme care", which was not the case in the proceedings at issue. The European Court therefore considered that the applicants did not have the possibility to prepare their defence and present their arguments regarding the new charges as well as their consequences, including potential sentences.

I.	Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
Mattei No. 34043/02	-	1,800 EUR	1,800 EUR	
Paid on 16/05/2007	
Miraux No. 73529/01	6,000 EUR	1,000 EUR	7,000 EUR	
Paid on 15/06/2007, interest paid on 4/12/2007	

b) Individual measures

It was open to the applicants to request the re-examination of their convictions under Articles L 626-1 ff. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In both cases, the European Court pointed out this procedure is, in principle, "appropriate to repair the violation found".
The European Court considered that the finding of a violation was in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage that Mrs Mattei alleged she had sustained.
When it comes to Mr Miraux, he was awarded just satisfaction "in respect of all heads of damage", in the light of his claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
No other individual measure was therefore considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

The Court made connections between these cases the Pélissier and Sassi case (No. 25444/94), in which the Grand Chamber issued its judgment on 25 March 1999. Indeed, in both cases, the facts concern the applicant’s right to be provided with detailed information on the nature of, and reason for, the charge brought against him, and of his right to be granted enough time and facilities to prepare his defence. The measures taken to publish the judgment so as to encourage domestic courts to adapt their practice to the Court’s requirements in this respect were explained to the Committee of Ministers.
In the Mattei judgment, the Court noted that the Cour de Cassation has been citing Article 6§1 in the legal basis of its judgments since 2001 and stating that “while it is for criminal judges to ensure the exact qualification of the charges, this must be conditional on ensuring that the defendant is given the opportunity to defend himself on the new charges..

Furthermore, the European Court’s judgments have been brought to the attention of the Cour de Cassation, the Office of the Prosecutor General before the Paris Court of Appeal and the Directorate of Criminal Affairs and Pardons of the Ministry of Justice (the Office of general criminal policies and protection of individual freedoms and the Office for the fight against organised crime, terrorism and money laundering).
Since July 2007, the judgments have also been issued in the Observatoire du droit européen of the Cour de Cassation on its intranet site as well as on the intranet site of the Ministry of Justice together with an explanatory note.
The Miraux judgment was transmitted to the Rouen Court of Appeal.

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.