[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ALLENET DE RIBEMONT v. FRANCE (INTERPRETATION) - 15175/89 [1996] ECHR 27 (7 August 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/27.html Cite as: (1996) 22 EHRR 582, 22 EHRR 582, [1996] ECHR 27

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Allenet de Ribemont v. France (interpretation

of the judgment of 10 February 1995) (1),

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with

Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and Rule 57 para. 4

of Rules of Court A (2), as a Chamber composed of the following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Mr J. De Meyer,

Mr I. Foighel,

Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici,

Mr B. Repik,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 22 February, 22 April and

24 June 1996,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

1. The case is numbered 3/1994/450/529. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications

to the Commission.

2. Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry

into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only

to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They

correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as

amended several times subsequently.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission")

submitted a request to the Court, under Rule 57 of Rules of Court A,

for the interpretation of the judgment delivered on 10 February 1995

in the case of Allenet de Ribemont v. France (Series A no. 308). The

request, dated 15 September 1995, was filed on 19 September 1995,

within the three-year period laid down by Rule 57 para. 1, and was

signed by Mr Trechsel, the President of the Commission.

2. In accordance with paragraph 4 of that Rule, the request for

interpretation has been considered by the Chamber which gave the

aforementioned judgment, composed of the same judges.

3. On 26 September 1995 the Registrar communicated the request to

the French Government ("the Government") and to the applicant and

invited them to submit any written comments by 12 January 1996, the

time-limit laid down by the President of the Chamber (Rule 57 para. 3).

The Registrar received the Government's observations on

12 January 1996 and the applicant's on 16 January.

The Court decided to dispense with a hearing.

THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

4. The case of Allenet de Ribemont v. France originated in an

application against the French Republic lodged with the Commission

under Article 25 (art. 25) by a French national,

Mr Patrick Allenet de Ribemont, on 24 May 1989.

5. On 21 January 1994 the Commission referred the case to the

Court, which gave judgment on 10 February 1995. The Court held that

there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention

(art. 6-2) in that the principle of presumption of innocence had not

been complied with, and of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) on account of

the unreasonable length of the proceedings brought by the applicant to

secure compensation.

6. The Court ruled on the question of the application of

Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50) in the same judgment.

Mr Allenet de Ribemont had sought compensation for pecuniary

and non-pecuniary damage, which he assessed at 10,000,000 French francs

(FRF) in total. He had also asked the Court to hold that the State

should guarantee him against any application for enforcement of a

judgment delivered by the Paris tribunal de grande instance on

14 March 1979 or, failing that, to give him leave to seek an increase

in the amount of just satisfaction at a later date. Lastly, he had

sought FRF 270,384.28 for costs and expenses.

The Court's rulings on these three claims are given in

paragraphs 62, 65 and 68 respectively of the judgment of

10 February 1995:

"62. The Court does not accept Mr Allenet de Ribemont's

reasoning with regard to pecuniary damage. It considers,

nevertheless, that the serious accusations made against him at

the press conference of 29 December 1976 certainly diminished

the trust placed in him by the people he did business with and

thus made it difficult for him to pursue his occupation. It

therefore finds the claim for compensation in respect of

pecuniary damage to be justified in part.

Moreover, it agrees with the Delegate of the Commission that

the applicant indisputably sustained non-pecuniary damage on

account of the breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) and

especially Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2). Although the fact

that Mr de Broglie was well known, the circumstances of his

death and the stir it caused certainly gave the authorities

good reason to inform the public speedily, they also made it

predictable that the media would give extensive coverage to

the statements about the inquiry under way. The lack of

restraint and discretion vis-à-vis the applicant was therefore

all the more reprehensible. Moreover, the statements in issue

were very widely reported, both in France and abroad.

Taking into account the various relevant factors and making

its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by

Article 50 (art. 50), the Court awards Mr Allenet de Ribemont

a total sum of FRF 2,000,000."

"65. Like the Government, the Court points out that under

Article 50 (art. 50) it does not have jurisdiction to issue

such an order to a Contracting State (see, mutatis mutandis,

the Idrocalce S.r.l. v. Italy judgment of 27 February 1992,

Series A no. 229-F, p. 65, para. 26, and the Pelladoah v. the

Netherlands judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-B,

pp. 35-36, para. 44). It further considers that the question

of just satisfaction is ready for decision."

"68. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court

awards the applicant FRF 100,000 plus VAT."

7. The operative provisions of the judgment of 10 February 1995

read as follows:

"FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

...

3. Holds by eight votes to one that the respondent State is

to pay the applicant, within three months, 2,000,000

(two million) French francs for damage;

4. Holds unanimously that the respondent State is to pay the

applicant, within three months, 100,000 (one hundred

thousand) French francs, plus value-added tax, for costs

and expenses;

5. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the claim for just

satisfaction."

8. In a letter of 15 May 1995 to the Ministry of the Interior and

Regional Development, Mr Allenet de Ribemont's lawyer protested against

the Government's failure to pay the sums due to him under the Court's

judgment of 10 February 1995.

9. On 18 May 1995 the Ministry sent the applicant's lawyer the

originals of two orders for payment - one for a sum of FRF 2,000,000

and the other for a sum of FRF 118,600 (FRF 100,000 plus 18.6% VAT) -

in favour of Mr Allenet de Ribemont.

10. In July-August 1995 the applicant was informed that an

attachment had been effected on 3 March 1995 at the request of the

de Broglie family under a judgment given by the Paris tribunal de

grande instance on 14 March 1979, which had become final.

In July 1995 the bailiff through whom the attachment had been

effected had received by transfer two sums from the Treasury office:

one of FRF 2,000,000 and the other of FRF 118,600, following which he

sent a cheque to the applicant's lawyer made out in the latter's favour

for the second sum.

11. In a letter of 20 July 1995 - supplemented by another one of

16 August 1995 - Mr Allenet de Ribemont asked the President of the

Commission to lodge with the Court a request for interpretation of the

judgment of 10 February 1995 in order

"...

To determine in the total sum of 2,000,000 ... francs awarded

in compensation the part awarded for non-pecuniary damage and

the part awarded for pecuniary damage, it being clearly

understood that the additional sum of 100,000 ... francs plus

VAT awarded in the judgment ... is expressly intended to cover

the costs and expenses of counsel.

Further, to determine the attachable and non-attachable parts

of that compensation.

Finally, to determine the date on which any interest shall

become payable in the event of non-payment by the Government

of the French Republic.

..."

12. With reference to paragraph 2 of Rule 57, the Commission in its

request for interpretation put the following three questions to the

Court:

"Firstly: Is it to be understood that Article 50 of the

Convention (art. 50), which provides for an award of just

satisfaction to the injured party if the domestic law of the

High Contracting Party allows only partial reparation to be

made for the consequences of the decision or measure held to

be in conflict with the obligations arising from the

Convention, means that any sum awarded under this head must be

paid to the injured party personally and be exempt from

attachment?

Secondly: In respect of sums subject to legal claims under

French law, should a distinction be made between the part of

the sum awarded under the head of pecuniary damage and the

part awarded under the head of non-pecuniary damage? and

Thirdly: If so, what were the sums which the Court intended to

grant the applicant in respect of pecuniary damage and

non-pecuniary damage respectively?"

13. On 19 October 1995 the Committee of Ministers of the Council

of Europe adopted the following resolution (Resolution DH (95) 247):

"The Committee of Ministers ...,

...

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied

by the Government of France, that it has exercised its

functions under Article 54 of the Convention (art. 54) in this

case, subject to any new examination which could be required

as a result of the Court's interpretative judgment.

Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 247

Information provided by the Government of France during the

examination of the Allenet de Ribemont case by the Committee

of Ministers

...

With regard to the payment of the just satisfaction the

Government can give the following information.

Anxious to ensure the proper execution of the judgment of the

European Court of Human Rights of 10 February 1995, the French

Government set in motion the payment procedure necessary in

order to ensure that Mr Allenet de Ribemont was paid in the

course of May 1995.

However, on 6 March 1995 the heirs of Mr de Broglie,

Mr Allenet de Ribemont's creditors, notified the General

Payment Office (Paierie générale du Trésor) of their request

that the sum be seized.

No attachment judgment was necessary since Mr de Broglie's

heirs had a valid execution title in the form of a judgment

from 1979 and the Payment Office paid Mr Allenet de Ribemont's

creditors on 18 July 1995 upon production of an affidavit of

non-opposition (certificat de non-opposition) issued by

Me Noquet, Enforcement Officer in Paris.

France has accordingly complied with its obligations under the

judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and cannot be

concerned by the problems which on this occasion may oppose

private parties."

AS TO THE LAW

14. Under the terms of Rule 57 of Rules of Court A,

"1. A Party or the Commission may request the interpretation

of a judgment within a period of three years following the

delivery of that judgment.

2. The request shall state precisely the point or points in

the operative provisions of the judgment on which

interpretation is required ...

..."

15. The Government argued that the request for interpretation was

inadmissible. The Court had clearly laid down in its judgment of

10 February 1995 that it had no jurisdiction to rule on whether the

sums in issue were or were not liable to attachment, so that the

judgment was not "obscure" or "ambiguous".

They added that the Court had no jurisdiction to determine the

dispute between the recipient of just satisfaction and that person's

creditors. Yet this was the purpose of the Commission's request since,

as the Committee of Ministers had found on 19 October 1995, the

Government had discharged their obligations under Article 54 of the

Convention (art. 54).

Furthermore, it followed from the Court's case-law that the

Court could not declare exempt from attachment the sums it awarded

under Article 50 (art. 50).

Lastly, and only in the alternative, the Government said that

there was no principle in French law that sums awarded by national

courts for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage were exempt from

attachment. At all events, it would be impossible in the instant case

to identify the sums that the Court had meant to award

Mr Allenet de Ribemont for pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage

respectively as the judgment of 10 February 1995 did not itself do so.

16. The applicant, who had asked the Commission to submit a request

for interpretation to the Court, contended that the request was

admissible.

On the merits his main submission was that the sums awarded by

the Court pursuant to Article 50 (art. 50) were autonomous vis-à-vis

domestic law. Indeed, the purpose of just satisfaction, he argued, was

to compensate for specific damage arising from a breach of the

Convention - an international treaty - for which the internal law of

the State held to have committed a breach allowed only partial

reparation to be made. It was also designed to penalise that State.

Lastly, supervision of the execution of the Court's judgments in which

one or more breaches of the Convention had been found - and the State

in question, where appropriate, ordered to pay specified sums - was

governed by special rules. Under Article 54 of the Convention

(art. 54), it was for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of

Europe to deal with any difficulties of execution, and not for the

State's administrative or judicial authorities. Given also the

indissoluble bond between the award and its recipient, all the sums

ordered to be paid to the victim of a breach were exempt from

attachment, whatever the domestic rules on the subject.

In the alternative, the applicant argued that if the Court held

that only sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage were exempt from

attachment, it should take into account the fact that the judgment of

10 February 1995 compensated for that damage distinctly more than for

pecuniary damage.

Mr Allenet de Ribemont also sought FRF 50,000 in respect of

costs and fees incurred during the present proceedings for

interpretation.

17. The Court observes that, when considering a request for

interpretation, it "is exercising inherent jurisdiction: it goes no

further than to clarify the meaning and scope which it intended to give

to a previous decision which issued from its own deliberations,

specifying if need be what it thereby decided with binding force" (see

the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 23 June 1973, Series A no. 16,

p. 8, para. 13).

18. In its first question the Commission asks the Court whether

"Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50) ... means that any sum awarded

under this head must be paid to the injured party personally and be

exempt from attachment".

19. The Court understands this question as an invitation to

interpret Article 50 (art. 50) in a general, abstract way. That,

however, goes outside not only the bounds laid down by Rule 57 of Rules

of Court A but also those of the Court's contentious jurisdiction under

the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Ringeisen judgment

previously cited, p. 8, para. 13, and the Lawless v. Ireland judgment

of 14 November 1960, Series A no. 1, p. 11).

At all events, the Court did not in the present case rule that

any sum awarded to Mr Allenet de Ribemont was to be free from

attachment. The applicant had asked the Court to hold that the State

should guarantee him against any application for enforcement of the

judgment delivered by the Paris tribunal de grande instance on

14 March 1979 (paragraph 63 of the judgment of 10 February 1995). In

response the Court said that "under Article 50 (art. 50) it does not

have jurisdiction to issue such an order to a Contracting State"

(paragraph 65 of the judgment). Accordingly, the question was left to

the national authorities acting under the relevant domestic law.

20. The Commission's second and third questions read as follows:

"In respect of sums subject to legal claims under French law,

should a distinction be made between the part of the sum

awarded under the head of pecuniary damage and the part

awarded under the head of non-pecuniary damage?"

"If so, what were the sums which the Court intended to grant

the applicant in respect of pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary

damage respectively?"

21. In its judgment of 10 February 1995 the Court awarded the

applicant FRF 2,000,000 "for damage" without distinguishing between

pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

In its reasoning it found "the claim for compensation in

respect of pecuniary damage to be justified in part" and considered

that the applicant "indisputably sustained non-pecuniary damage"

(paragraph 62 of the Court's judgment of 10 February 1995;

paragraphs 6-7 above). Taking into account "the various relevant

factors and making its assessment on an equitable basis", it awarded

the applicant "a total sum of FRF 2,000,000" (ibid.).

22. It follows that, in relation to the sum awarded, the Court

considered that it did not have to identify the proportions

corresponding to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively. The

Court is not bound to do so when affording "just satisfaction" under

Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50). In point of fact it is often

difficult, if not impossible, to make any such distinction, as is

illustrated in several previous judgments where the Court granted an

aggregate sum (see, among other authorities, the following judgments:

Billi v. Italy, 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-G, p. 90, para. 25;

Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 13 June 1994, Series A

no. 285-C, p. 58, para. 20; and López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994,

Series A no. 303-C, pp. 57-58, paras. 62-65).

23. The Court's judgment of 10 February 1995 is clear on the points

in the operative provisions on which interpretation has been requested.

To hold otherwise would not be to clarify "the meaning and scope" of

that judgment but rather to modify it in respect of an issue which the

Court decided "with binding force" (see the Ringeisen judgment

previously cited, p. 8, para. 13).

Accordingly, there is likewise no matter for interpretation

within the meaning of Rule 57 of Rules of Court A.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Holds by eight votes to one that it has no jurisdiction to

answer the first question put by the Commission, and

consequently rejects the Commission's request for

interpretation on this point;

2. Holds unanimously that it is unnecessary to answer the

Commission's second and third questions, and consequently

rejects the request for interpretation on these points.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public

hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 7 August 1996.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 of the Convention

(art. 51-2) and Rule 53 para. 2 of Rules of Court A, the following

separate opinions are annexed to this judgment:

(a) concurring opinion of Mr Pettiti;

(b) dissenting opinion of Mr De Meyer.

Initialled: R.R.

Initialled: H.P.

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PETTITI

(Translation)

I voted with the majority, accepting in particular that the

Court had to answer the questions as put by the Commission. This was

not a general, abstract request for interpretation from the Committee

of Ministers under Protocol No. 2 to the Convention (P2), which could

have related to the specific nature of compensation for non-pecuniary

damage under Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50).

The Court rejects both the Government's submission that the

Court had no jurisdiction to determine the issue and the submission

that the Court could not rule on a question of exemption from

attachment.

The Court rightly notes that when considering a request for

interpretation, it may exercise an inherent jurisdiction in a

particular case and, if need be, clarify its decision in respect of

Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50).

The applicant's complaints relating to the procedural

circumstances of enforcement measures taken in France are still under

the jurisdiction of the national courts.

It was therefore solely in reply to the questions as put by the

Commission under Rule 57 of Rules of Court A that the Court rejected

the Commission's request.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

(Translation)

1. In my opinion, we should have answered the Commission's first

question in the affirmative.

It is true that this question can be understood "as an

invitation to interpret Article 50 (art. 50) in a general, abstract

way" (1). But that is so only in appearance. In reality, the

Commission was asking us to say, in concrete terms and in the

particular case of Mr Allenet de Ribemont, whether the "just

satisfaction" awarded him in the judgment of 10 February 1995 had or

had not to be "paid to [him] personally and be exempt from attachment".

_______________

1. Paragraph 19 of the judgment, first sub-paragraph.

_______________

At all events, it must not be forgotten, firstly, that

questions "concerning the interpretation and application" (2) of

Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50) are just as much within the

Court's jurisdiction as those concerning the Convention's other

provisions and, secondly, that we very often include in the reasons

given for our judgments forms of words defining "in a general, abstract

way" the meaning to be given to such provisions before applying them

to the particular case.

_______________

2. Article 45 of the Convention (art. 45).

_______________

Nor is it sufficient to point out that in the judgment of

10 February 1995 the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to order

the French State to "guarantee" the applicant "against any application

for enforcement of the judgment delivered by the Paris tribunal de

grande instance on 14 March 1979". That does not necessarily mean that

it thus resolved the problem raised by the Commission in its first

question by leaving it "to the national authorities acting under the

relevant domestic law" (3).

_______________

3. Paragraph 19 of the judgment, second sub-paragraph.

_______________

Such a solution is scarcely in keeping with the spirit of the

Convention.

For one thing, it is hard to accept that the execution of a

judgment in which an applicant is awarded "just satisfaction" under

Article 50 (art. 50) should be subject to different legislation in

different countries.

For another, it is just as hard to accept that the right to

compensation for a breach of fundamental rights recognised by the

Convention may be frustrated by an ordinary debt arising under national

law. This is particularly offensive in the instant case as the claim

against the applicant arose, at least indirectly, from a breach of such

rights in regard to him (4).

_______________

4. See the judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 22,

para. 59, and paragraph 10 of the present judgment.

_______________

We should therefore have said, as our predecessors did in the

Ringeisen case in reply to an identical question, that the compensation

is to be paid to the applicant "personally and free from attachment"

(5).

_______________

5. See the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 23 June 1973, Series A

no. 16, p. 9, second point of the operative provisions, p. 6, para. 8,

and p. 9, para. 15.

_______________

2. As regards the other two questions put by the Commission, I am

of the same opinion as the other members of the Chamber.