Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)207

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Matheus against France

(Application No. 62740/00, judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 01/07/2005)

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 violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the applicant’s inability to obtain police assistance to evict the unlawful occupiers of a plot of land he owned (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 and 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 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), 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(2011)207

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

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the fact that the applicant, following a judicial decision in his favour delivered in 1988, could not obtain police assistance to evict the unlawful occupiers of a plot of land he owned in Guadeloupe and which he finally sold in 2004, having lost all hope of recovering possession. The European Court found that the excessively sustained failure to execute the judicial decision, in the absence of any exceptional circumstance justifying such an abuse of authority, and the consequent uncertainty for the applicant as to the fate of his property, undermined his right to effective judicial protection (violation of Article 6§1). The Court also considered that the refusal in this case to provide police assistance, in the absence of any justification of public interest, had resulted in a form of private expropriation from which the unlawful occupant had benefited (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
-	3000 EUR	-	3000 EUR	
Paid on 02/06/2006 – 124,75 EUR paid as default interest on 17/11/2008	

b) Individual measures

It is recalled that, besides the fact that the land at issue is no longer the applicant’s property, he received various sums to compensate for the loss of enjoyment of his property and moral damages (judgments of the administrative court and decision of the Prefecture) for the gross negligence committed by the state in refusing to take part in the execution of the judicial decision at issue. Moreover, the European Court granted just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

The European Court held, in particular, that the refusal to grant police assistance originated from “failings of the bailiffs and of the Prefect, or even from a deliberate refusal of the latter, in the particular local circumstances, to give their assistance during sixteen years in eviction proceedings” (§68 of the judgment). Although domestic courts held that such refusal was illegal (see the case-law of the Couseil d’Etat mentioned in the European Court’s judgment), the damages granted to the applicant were not sufficient to compensate for the inaction of the competent authorities (§ 58 and 71 of the judgment). Finally, the violation does not have its origin in the law itself but in its implementation in the specific circumstances of the case by the relevant authorities, that is the bailiffs and especially the Prefect (§60 and 68 of the judgment).

In order to avoid new, similar violations, the judgment was brought to the attention of the competent authorities, with a view to facilitating its implementation in practice. Besides the dissemination of the judgment to the authorities concerned in the Matheus case, the judgment has also been permanently published since October 2008 on the Intranet site of the Ministry of Interior, where it is visible for all Ministry officials and for officials of its external offices, in particular for prefectures. More generally, the competent authorities - in particular Bailiffs - have access to this judgment via several publications. In this respect, reference is made to several publications of the Cour de Cassation: Information Bulletin of the Cour de Cassation No. 619 of 15/05/2005; Annual report 2008, section “studies”; Cour européenne des droits de l’homme 2002-2006 - arrêts concernant la France et leurs commentaires (published by the European Law Observatory of the Cour de Cassation). Finally, it can be noted that the judgment was presented in several broadly disseminated legal publications, either general or specialising in property law.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case apart from the payment of the just satisfaction apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant by the Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.