Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)190

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Stratégies et Communications and Dumoulin against Belgium and
Garsoux and Massenet against Belgium

(Application No. 37370/97, judgment of 15 July 2002, final on 15 October 2002, and
Application No. 27072/05, judgment of 13 May 2008, final on 13 August 2008)

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 excessive length of certain criminal proceedings at the investigation phase, in cases in which the applicants were respectively accused or civil parties (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1); recalling that the case of Stratégies et Communications and Dumoulin also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13) (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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment of Stratégies et Communications and Dumoulin (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;

Recalling that on 20 June 2007, in view of the measures presented by the Belgian authorities (see Appendix to this resolution), the Committee of Ministers decided to put an end to its supervision of the execution of the case of Stratégies et Communications and Dumoulin, and recalling that it took the same decision for the repetitive case of Garsoux and Massenet;

Adding however that in the meantime another group of cases concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings at the investigation phase was constituted (De Clerck group of cases) and that the Committee continues supervising the execution of that group, concerning both Article 6§1 and Article 13;

DECLARES, in view of its decision of 20 June 2007 mentioned above, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in the present cases and consequently

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)190

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Stratégies et Communications and Dumoulin against Belgium and 
Garsoux and Massenet against Belgium

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings at the investigation phase, in cases in which the applicants were respectively accused or civil parties. In the case of Stratégies et Communications and Dumoulin, the investigation began on 24/04/1996 and was still under way, six years and two months later, when the European Court delivered its judgment (violation of Article 6§1). In the case of Garsoux and Massenet, the investigation began – in respect of the only applicant regarding whom the Court found a violation – on 5 April 2001 and ended on 24 April 2007, after more than 6 years for one level of jurisdiction (violation of Article 6§1). The case of Stratégies et Communications and Dumoulin also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

I.	Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
Stratégies et Communication and Dumoulin (37370/97) judgment of 15/07/02, final on 15/10/02	-	5000 EUR	9000 EUR	14 000 EUR	
Paid on 02/12/2002	
Garsoux and Massenet (27072/05) judgment of 13/05/08, final on 13/08/08	-	-	-	-	

b) Individual measures

In the case of Stratégies et Communications and Dumoulin, the applicants’ file was closed and archived following a decision of the Attorney General of Brussels, mainly based on the absence of any party claiming damages and the few criminal elements in this case. In the case of Garsoux and Massenet, it is recalled that the proceedings at issue were finished when the Court delivered its judgment. In these circumstances, and in view of the Court’s findings concerning just satisfaction, no other individual measure appears necessary.

II.	General measures

Regarding the violations of Article 6§1, in November 2005 the General Public Prosecutor sent a circular to all prosecutors concerning new guidelines on the supervision of the efficiency of long preliminary investigations. This document inter alia encourages public prosecutors regularly to send detailed reports on cases in which preliminary investigations have lasted for more than one year to the General Public Prosecutor.

The examination of the violation of Article 13 continues in the framework of the De Clerck group of cases.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no other individual measure is required to remedy the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases. It further recalls that the general measures concerning Articles 6§1 and 13 continue to be examined by the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the De Clerck group of cases. Thus, it considers that Belgium has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in these cases.