CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016 Annex [Original: English] Individual opinion of José Manuel Santos Pais (partially dissenting) 1. I concur with the Committee’s decision regarding the different claims submitted by the authors, with the exception of the claim relating to the excessive length of the judicial proceedings. There, the Committee concluded that the authors had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as they did not invoke the alleged violations of article 14 (1) of the Covenant before the domestic courts, or did so only indirectly, and did not seek specific remedies for the allegedly excessive length of the legal proceedings or the lack of full compensation for lost property. 2. M.F. argues that some aspects of the alleged violations of the right to a fair hearing and the right to a full and effective remedy have been indirectly raised before the domestic courts. She nonetheless admits that she and her husband did not seek specific remedies for the allegedly excessive length of the domestic legal proceedings or for the lack of full compensation for lost property, as they were of the view that any attempt to seek such remedies was bound to fail, not least because article L.141-1 of the Judicial Code, which covers only what are referred to as serious miscarriages of justice, does not, in this case, provide for a useful and effective remedy within the meaning of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. I agree with her conclusion that article L.141-1 of the Judicial Code does not seem to cover the right to compensation in complex cases. 3. Only two of the proceedings in which the authors were involved relate directly to the repossession of their property – namely, the first foreclosure proceedings, initiated by the mortgage holder in April 1998 and brought to an end with the Court of Cassation judgment of September 2000, and the second such proceedings, initiated by the Compagnie de financement foncier in May 2004, which lasted until 11 July 2013, when the Court of Cassation rendered its judgment. 4. It is however to be noted that the four types of proceedings in which the authors participated – against the lending institution, the contractor, the lawyer and his insurer, and the tenant – were closely interrelated and interdependent and, according to the authors, lasted for 26 years (1987–2013). After such a long period, to require the authors to submit before the French courts yet another claim, for the excessive length of the proceedings, seems unreasonable and would only increase an already excessive delay. So, I do not consider that the authors had to exhaust domestic remedies for this claim, since the remedy would, in itself, be ineffective. 5. Even taking into consideration only the proceedings relating to the authors’ property and the loan they had taken out from Crédit foncier de France, these began in 1998 and lasted until 2013, therefore for 15 years. And indeed, several contradictory decisions, which had a direct impact on the result of the proceedings, were handed down by the State party’s courts during this period. 6. On 11 September 1998, the judge ordered the sale of the authors’ home. This decision however was overturned by the Court of Cassation on 21 September 2000. 7. In a letter of 16 July 2001, the authors learned that the Draguignan Office of the Mortgage Registrar had refused to list the house in their name, but a judgment of 27 June 2002 recognized that the sale at auction, following the decision of 11 September 1998, was null and void. 8. On 6 September 2005, the Marseille Tribunal de Grande Instance found that Crédit foncier de France was at fault and had caused the authors to suffer compensable damage. However, the court did not determine the exact amount that the authors should be awarded in compensation. On 1 December 2006, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence acknowledged again the harm that had been done to the authors by Crédit foncier de France. GE.21-01892 15