Ministers’ Deputies
Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2005)948 14 December 2005
Volume – RESOLUTIONS
———————————————

948th meeting (DH), 29-30 November 2005

Resolutions adopted


——————————————

CONTENTS Page

Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)113
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 19 June 2003 in the case of Hulki Güneş against Turkey 4

Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)114
concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
and decisions by the Committee of Ministers in 2183 cases against Italy
relating to the excessive length of judicial proceedings 6

Resolution ResDH(2005)115
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 8 November 2002 (Friendly settlement) in the case of Sulejmanovic and others and
Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic against Italy 8

Resolution ResDH(2005)116
concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
delivered between 14 November 2000 and 15 February 2005 (final between 14 February 2001 and 15 May 2005) in the 27 cases against Turkey (see appendix) concerning the administration’s delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest 10

Resolution ResDH(2005)117
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 9 October 2003 (Friendly settlement) in the case of Hager against France 13

Resolution ResDH(2005)118
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 20 June 2002 (Friendly settlement) in the case of H.D. against Poland 14

Resolution ResDH(2005)119
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 21 December 2004 (Friendly settlement) in the case of Moreira Barbosa against Portugal 15

Resolution ResDH(2005)120
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 2 October 2001 (Friendly settlement) in the case of Duyonov and others against the United Kingdom 17

Section 4.3
(item H46-1290)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)113
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 19 June 2003
in the case of Hulki Güneş against Turkey


(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 November 2005
at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) of 19 June 2003 in the Hulki Güneş v. Turkey case (application no. 28490/95) transmitted on 19 September 2003 to the Committee for supervision of execution in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”);

Recalling that, in that judgment, the Court found violations of the applicants’ right, under the Convention, to a fair trial before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, on account of:

- the lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6 § 1);

- the impossibility for the applicant to examine or to have examined the witnesses who testified against him (violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d));

Noting that, as a result the unfair proceedings, the applicant was sentenced to death, a sentence which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment;

Recalling that the Court also found that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while in police custody (violation of Article 3);

Stressing the obligation of every state, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by the judgments of the Court, including through the adoption of individual measures putting an end to the violations found and removing as far as possible their effects for the applicant;

Considering that, in addition to the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, the adoption of individual measures is necessary in view of the specific circumstances of the present case, notably the extent of the violations found, the serious doubts they cast on the outcome of the criminal proceedings at issue and the gravity of the sentence imposed on the applicant;

Regretting that, more than two years after the finding of the violations in this case, no measures have been taken by the Turkish authorities, beyond the payment of just satisfaction, to grant the applicant adequate redress for the violations found;

Considering that the reopening of the impugned domestic proceedings remains the best means of ensuring restitutio in integrum in this case;

Regretting that the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure does not enable the criminal proceedings to be reopened in the present case, inasmuch as the Code only provides for the reopening of proceedings in respect of European Court judgments which became final before 4 February 2003 or judgments rendered in applications lodged with the Court after 4 February 2003;

Noting with disappointment that the Turkish authorities have so far not responded to the Committee’s repeated calls to correct this lacuna in Turkish law;

Recalling, with regard to the other aspects of the execution of the judgment in this case, that the Turkish authorities have already taken comprehensive general measures in order to prevent new similar violations of the right to a fair trial and are presently implementing a comprehensive set of measures aimed at preventing ill-treatment by members of the security forces (Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43);

Recalling in particular the recently amended Article 90 of the Constitution enabling direct effect to be given in Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention and case-law of the Court;

CALLS ON the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to abide by their obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to redress the violations found in respect of the applicant through the reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings or other appropriate ad hoc measures;

DECIDES to continue to supervise the execution of the Court’s judgment in this case at each of its “Human Rights” meetings until full compliance is secured.

Section 4.3
(item H46-1286)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)114
concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and decisions by the Committee of Ministers in 2183 cases against Italy relating to the excessive length of judicial proceedings

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 November 2005
at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Articles 32 and 54 and of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) and decisions of the Committee of Ministers since the early 1980s finding violations by Italy of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, due to the excessive length of judicial proceedings;

Recalling that the important structural problems at the basis of these violations have been examined by the Committee for almost 20 years with a view to ensuring that the Italian judicial system is brought into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, thus preventing new, similar violations before criminal, civil and administrative courts;

Recalling that, in the 1990s, the efforts already deployed by the Italian authorities to solve these problems had led the Committee to close its supervision on the assumption that the comprehensive measures adopted would achieve satisfactory results (see e.g. as regards civil proceedings, Resolution DH(95)82 in the case of Zanghì);

Recalling, however, that the Committee had to conclude, in particular as a result of continuing influx of new cases to the Court, that the problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Italy persisted and that it was necessary to reopen its supervision of the question of the general and individual measures required to remedy the violations found and to prevent similar violations;

Recalling that, in the context of this renewed supervision, the Italian authorities presented in 2000 various lines of action (Interim Resolution DH(2000)135), providing for:

    - the in-depth, structural modernisation of the judicial system to achieve improved long-term efficiency;
    - special action (sezioni stralcio) to deal with the oldest cases pending before national civil courts or, at least, to produce short-term positive effects;
    - the acceleration of compensation procedures through the creation of a domestic remedy in cases of excessive length of proceedings;

Recalling that the Committee supported these lines of action and called upon the Italian authorities, in view of the gravity and persistence of the problem, to maintain the reform of the Italian judicial system as a high priority, to continue to make rapid and visible progress in the implementation of the reforms, and to continue their examination of further measures necessary effectively to prevent new similar violations;

Noting with interest the responses given by Italy to this Interim Resolution, and in particular:

    - the numerous legislative initiatives subsequently taken to increase the efficiency of the judicial system and the management efforts undertaken by the courts to improve their case-handling capacity, while noting the absence of a sufficiently coherent approach and the fact that a number of reforms still remain to be adopted or implemented;

    - the rapid setting-up of the sezioni stralcio to deal with the oldest cases, while regretting that the implementation of the reform has not been such as to allow the termination of these cases within the time-limits initially set;

    - the setting-up of a domestic remedy providing compensation in cases of excessive length of proceedings, adopted in 2001 (the "Pinto” law), as well as the recent development of the case-law of the Court of cassation, increasing the direct effect of the case-law of the European Court in the Italian legal system, while noting that this remedy still does not enable for acceleration of proceedings so as to grant effective redress to all victims;

Stressing that the setting-up of domestic remedies does not dispense states from their general obligation to solve the structural problems underlying violations;

Finding that despite the efforts undertaken, numerous elements still indicate that the solution to the problem will not be found in the near future (as evidenced in particular by the statistical data, the new cases before both domestic courts and the European Court, the information contained in the annual reports submitted by the government to the Committee and in the reports of the Prosecutor General at the Court of cassation);

Welcoming the renewed efforts made by the Italian Government and Parliament and also by the judicial authorities themselves in recent years, in particular the plan of action recently submitted to the Committee of Ministers, concentrating on legislative changes to accelerate civil proceedings;

Taking into account Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1684 (2004), on the implementation of decisions of the Court, which urges the Committee of Ministers to ensure, without further delay, that the Italian authorities take the necessary execution measures in respect of all outstanding judgments older than five years and in all cases where individual measures are urgently expected;

Stressing the importance the Convention attaches to the right to fair administration of justice in a democratic society and recalling that the problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings, by reason of its persistence and extent, constitutes a real danger for the respect of the rule of law in Italy;

Noting that the persistence and development of this situation, since the 1980s, clearly highlights the structural and complex nature of the underlying problems, which affect most Italian courts, including the highest ones, in the civil, criminal and administrative fields;

Stressing that the gravity and complexity of the problem of excessive length of judicial proceedings requires an interdisciplinary approach and commitment at the highest level, involving the key actors;

Noting therefore, with great interest, the ongoing discussion and new initiatives currently pending before the Italian parliament, in particular the draft bill creating a particular competence, at the highest governmental level, to promote the implementation of judgments of the Court,

    URGES the Italian authorities to enhance their political commitment and make it their effective priority to meet Italy’s obligation under the Convention and the Court’s judgments, to secure the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time to all persons under Italy’s jurisdiction;

    CALLS UPON the competent authorities to set up an effective national policy, coordinated at the highest governmental level, with a view to achieving a comprehensive solution to the problem and to present by the end of 2006 at the latest a new plan of action based on a stocktaking of results achieved so far and embodying an efficient approach to its implementation;

    DECIDES to maintain these cases under close supervision and resume consideration of them at its last meeting (DH) in 2006, noting the commitment of the Italian authorities to keep the Council of Europe informed of progress in the preparation of the said action plan.

Section 1.1
(item H46-1622)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2005)115
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 8 November 2002 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic against Italy

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 December 2005
at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sulejmanovic & others and Sejdovic & Sulejmanovic case delivered on 8 November 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in two applications (Nos. 57574/00 & 57575/00) against Italy, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 and 18 May 2000 by six nationals of the former Yugoslavia, and that the Court declared admissible the applicants’ complaints, under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, relating to the conditions of their expulsion to Bosnia and Herzegovina in March 2000;

Whereas in its judgment of 8 November 2002 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Italy would:
1) revoke the deportation orders in respect of the applicants;
2) permit them to enter Italy with their families;
3) issue them with residence permits on humanitarian grounds, valid for one year and renewable, allowing them to work and study in Italy;
4) provide them with temporary accommodation, in association with the Rome local authorities, pending the finding of long-term accommodation in an equipped camp and to keep them informed of any development on the subject;
5) arrange with the competent authorities for the children of school age to attend school and be helped to make up for the school years lost after their expulsion to Bosnia and Herzegovina;
6) arrange with the competent authorities for a sick child to receive necessary medical attention in the framework of the public health system;
7) pay the following sums to the following beneficiaries:
to Paso Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Hadzira Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Vedrana Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Vahida Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Scefkjia Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Elvedin Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Aziz Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Lubinka Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Vahid Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Alisa Sulejmanovic € 45 090,10
to Nenad Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Halida Salkanovic € 7 746,90
to Fatima Sejdovic € 7 746,90

to Izet Sulejmanovic € 7 746,90
to Stiv Sejdovic € 7 746,90
to Brenda Sejdovic € 7 746,90

      to the lawyer, Mr Nicolò Paoletti, the sum of € 2 656,31 (sum to be paid tax free and inclusive of VAT and CPA) as compensation for the cost and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court;

Recalling that Rule 43, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Court (former Article 44, paragraph 2) provides that the striking out of a case which has been declared admissible shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance, friendly settlement or solution of the matter;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided in the friendly settlement and complied with the specific undertakings subscribed to (see details in appendix);

Having noted the applicants’ complaints concerning the effective fulfilment of some of the undertakings given, but considering that these complaints go beyond the scope of the commitments explicitly undertaken by Italy in the friendly settlement and that the Court is competent to assess whether the present situation is compatible with the Convention, possibly on the basis of a new application,

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Italy, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in respect of the specific commitments undertaken in this case.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)115

Information provided by the Government of Italy
during the examination of the Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic & Sulejmanovic case
By the Committee of Ministers

In accordance with the friendly settlement concluded before the European Court of Human Rights, Italy has taken the following measures:

1) The deportation orders were revoked on 18 October 2002 and the applicants’ names removed from the “Schengen” database;

2) All the applicants re-entered Italy, their travel being paid by the Italian authorities who also accepted to extend the time-frame agreed in the friendly settlement for their return;

3) Residence permits in conformity with the terms of the friendly settlement have been given to all the applicants or put at their disposal;

4) One of the applicant families has been able to settle in an equipped site, together with their grandmother, from November 2002; accommodation in an equipped site was provided for the other applicant families in October 2003 and December 2004;

5) The children of school age are registered for school and remedial tutoring is provided to them on a daily basis by the social services;

6) The applicants have full access to the public health service and specific information has been provided to them on the special medical services available for their sick child;

7) All the sums agreed upon in the framework of the friendly settlement (for a total sum of 161293,60 €) have been paid respectively on 10 February, 17 March and 12 November 2003.

In the view of the foregoing, the Government considers that Italy has complied with the terms of the friendly settlement concluded in the present case before the European Court of Human Rights.

Section 1.2
(items H46-1747 to H46-1750, H46-1801 to H46-1812 and H46-1913 to H46-1923)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2005)116
concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
delivered between 14 November 2000 and 15 February 2005 (final between 14 February 2001 and 15 May 2005) in the 27 cases against Turkey (see appendix) concerning the administration’s delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 December 2005
at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the 27 cases details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, delivered between 14 November 2000 and 15 February 2005 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the judgments of the Court became final between 14 February 2001 and 15 May 2005 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the cases originated in applications against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission and/or the European Court of Human Rights between 26 August 1991 and 21 February 2000 under former Article 25 and/or Article 34 of the Convention by several Turkish nationals, and that the Court declared admissible the complaints concerning the violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their property on account of the administration’s delay in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the difference between the applicable rate of default interest and the average rate of inflation;

Whereas in its judgments delivered between 14 November 2000 and 15 February 2005 concerning these cases the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgments became final, the amounts of just satisfaction (set out in the appendix to this resolution) to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement and that simple interest would be payable on the amounts (annual rates are set out in the appendix to this resolution) from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement

- dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments delivered between 14 November 2000 and 15 February 2005, having regard to Turkey’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind (see Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 in the cases Aka and Akkuş against Turkey, respectively), in particular through the entry into force on 1 January 2000 of Law No. 4489, which brought the statutory rate of default interest into line with the annual rediscount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debts (the latter rate is fixed and permanently reviewed, taking into account particularly the country’s inflation rate), and indicated that the Court’s judgments had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;

Having satisfied itself that on the dates indicated in the appendix, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided in these judgments,

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)116

Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants

Simple interest at an annual rate of 6%

Case

Applicat-ion

Date of judgment

Date of definitive judgment

Non pecuniary damage

Pecuniary damage

Costs

Date of payment

Zekeriya YILMAZ

19308/92

10/04/01

10/07/01

1 000 USD

913 USD

300 USD

13/07/01 + interests

Hamit YILMAZ

19310/92

10/04/01

10/07/01

1 000 USD

575 USD

300 USD

15/08/01 + interests

YASAR

27697/95

14/11/00

14/02/01

17 000 USD

5 795 USD

2 100 USD

03/04/01 + interests

OZEL and Others

31963/96

27/02/01

27/05/01

3 000 USD

272 934 USD

-

30/05/01 + interests

Simple interest equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points

Case

Application

Date of the judgment

Date of definitive judgment

Pecuniary damage

Costs

Date of payment

KAYA and Others

36564/97

27/05/04

27/08/04

45 000 €

100,00 €

26/11/04

YASAR and Others

36973/97

22/07/04

22/10/04

34 785 €

400,00 €

07/02/05

I.I.

38420/97

27/05/04

27/08/04

2 400 €

-

26/11/04

KAYIHAN and others

42124/98

08/04/04

08/07/04

27 700 €

-

04/06/04

KOCAK and Others

42432/98

19/05/04

10/11/04

1000 000 €

1 000,00 €

10/02/05

UGUR and Others

49690/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

141 972 €

500,00 €

26/04/05

KARTAL MAKINA SANAYI VE TICARET KOLL. STI.

49698/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

12 590 €

300,00 €

26/04/05

KAPUCU

49718/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

13 244 €

300,00 €

25/04/05

VEREP

49751/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

35 750 €

300,00 €

25/04/05

ONK and Others

49762/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

59 868 €

500,00 €

25/04/05

KOÇYIGIT and UZUNER

49923/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

224 983 €

500,00 €

27/04/05

KARTAL MAKINA SANAYI VE TICARET KOLL. STI.

50011/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

169 000 €

300 €

27/04/05

SEÇENLER KAUÇUK VE PLASTIK SAN. VE TIC. A.S.

50042/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

26 000 €

300 €

26/05/05

ÇEBI

50728/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

1 932 €

300 €

26/04/05

YURTKURAN and Others

50730/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

269 579 €

500 €

27/04/05

ÇIFTÇI

50732/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

7 888 €

300 €

02/05/05

GÜRKAN and AKTAN

50741/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

66 717 €

500 €

04/05/05*

ÇILOGLU AND OTHERS

50967/99

28/10/04

28/01/05

99 000 €

500 €

22/04/05

VELIOGLU and Others

51481/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

468 000 €

500 €

27/04/05

TURAN

51485/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

13 000 €

300 €

25/04/05

TELLI and Others

51488/99

07/10/04

02/02/05

248 300 €

500 €

27/04/05

ÇENESIZ AND OTHERS

54531/00

28/10/04

28/01/05

420 €

500 €

22/04/05

MANCAR

57372/00

15/02/05

15/05/05

429 390 €

500 €

10/08/05

*Payment made two days after the payment deadline, which is considered as minimum delay.

Section 1.4
(item H46-1518)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2005)117
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 9 October 2003 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Hager against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 December 2005
at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hager case delivered on 9 October 2003 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 56616/00) against France, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 April 2000 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Roland Hager, a French national, and that the Cour declared admissible the complaint concerning the fact that the applicant, who had lodged an appeal on a point of law before the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation without the assistance of an “avocat aux Conseils” (a member of the Court of Cassation and Council of State Bar), could not thus be informed of the Advocate General’s submissions and therefore could not answer them or, furthermore, of the date of the hearing;

Whereas in its judgment of 9 October 2003 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of France would pay the applicant, the global sum of 1 500 euros, within three months as from the delivery of the judgment, and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

Recalling that Rule 43, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Court (old Rule 44, paragraph 2) provides that the striking-out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that on 10 May 2004 after the expiry of time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum agreed in the friendly settlement, and on 10 August 2005 the default interest due for the delay occurred and that no other measure was required in the present case to comply with the Court’s judgment,

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of France, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.

Section 1.4
(item H46-1662)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2005)118
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 20 June 2002 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of H.D. against Poland

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 December 2005
at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the H.D. case delivered on 20 June 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 33310/96) against Poland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 October 1995 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mrs H.D., a Polish national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment upon her arrest and during detention in a Warsaw sobering-up center;

Whereas in its judgment of 20 June 2002 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Poland would pay the applicant the global sum of 10 000 Polish Zlotys, within three months as from the delivery of the judgment;

Recalling that Rule 43, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Court (old Rule 44, paragraph 2) provides that the striking-out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that on 26 August 2002, within time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums agreed in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Poland, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.

Section 1.4
(item H46-1679)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2005)119
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 21 December 2004 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Moreira Barbosa against Portugal

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 December 2005
at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Moreira Barbosa case delivered on 21 December 2004 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 65681/01) against Portugal, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 January 2001 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Joaquim Moreira Barbosa, a Portuguese national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint concerning the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings which the applicant had joined as a civil party;

Whereas in its judgment of 21 December 2004 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Portugal would pay the applicant, the sums of 5 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damages and of 2 000 euros in respect of costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

Recalling that Rule 43, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Court (old Rule 44, paragraph 2) provides that the striking-out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that on 8 March 2005 within time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums agreed in the friendly settlement,

Recalling that, as regards the applicant's complaint declared admissible in this case, the Committee of Ministers is at present supervising the execution of several judgments of the Court (including Oliveira Modesto and other similar cases), finding a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of proceedings before the Portuguese civil and criminal courts;

Whereas, in this connection, the Portuguese authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that they were drafting and adopting new general measures in order to put an end to the serious problem of excessive length of proceedings, so as to prevent new violations similar to those already found;

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Portugal, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.

Section 1.4
(item H46-1943)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2005)120
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 2 October 2001 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Duyonov and others against the United Kingdom

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 December 2005
at the 948th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Duyonov and others delivered on 2 October 2001 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 36670/97) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 May 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by German Duyonov, Alexy Mirza, Vadim Sprygin and Nikolai Ivanov, four Georgian nationals, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning the refusal of the Gibraltar authorities to grant the applicants legal aid and the right to appeal before the Privy Council;

Whereas in its judgment of 2 October 2001 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of the United Kingdom would pay the applicants the global sum of 5 000 pounds Sterling, upon notification of the judgment;

Recalling that Rule 43, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Court (old Rule 44, paragraph 2) provides that the striking-out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that on 18 July 2001 the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sum agreed in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to comply with the Court’s judgment,

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents