Ministers’ Deputies

Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2010)1078 9 March 2010

Volume – RESOLUTIONS

———————————————

1078th meeting (DH), 2-4 March 2010

Resolutions adopted

———————————————

CONTENTS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1 4
Moser against Austria 4

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2 7
Van Geyseghem and 4 other cases against Belgium 7

Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3 10
Watson against France 10

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)4 12
Mocie and Desserprit against France 12

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)5 15
Vetter against France 15

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)6 18
Wisse against France 18

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)7 20
Mathony against Luxembourg 20

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)8 23
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others and Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova
and others against Moldova
23

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)9 31
Venema against Netherlands 31

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)10 33
Salah Sheekh against Netherlands 33

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)11 36
Sanchez Cardenas against Norway 36

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)12 38
Adalı against Turkey 38

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)13 41
Mareš against the Czech Republic 41

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)14 43
Zich and others against the Czech Republic 43

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)15 46
Vokoun against the Czech Republic 46

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)16 48
S.H. against Finland 48

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)17 50
Sahin and Sommerfeld against Germany 50

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)18 53
Citarella, Votto, Votto Renato, La Fazia, Di Crosta, Massimo Maria Assunta, Cifra, D’Apolito,
Puzella and Cosentino, Moroni, Valentini, Fabiano & Furno against Italy
53

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)19 56
Bogulak and 3 other cases against Poland 56

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)20 58
Urbino Rodrigues & Roseiro Bento against Portugal 58

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)21 60
Cornelia Eufrosina Radu against Romania 60

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)22 62
The Estate of Nitschke against Sweden 62

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)23 64
in 5 cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation
for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest
against Turkey
64

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)24 66
in 8 cases concerning discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender
regarding social security benefits against United Kingdom
66

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)25 69
R.K. and A.K. against the United Kingdom 69

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)26 71
Van Houten against Netherlands 71

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)27 72
in the case of Principe and others against Italy 72

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)28 74
Cruz da Silva Coelho case against Portugal 74

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)29 75
Rosival and others against the Slovak Republic 75

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)30 76
Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB against Sweden 76

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)31 77
in the case of Hunt and Miller against the United Kingdom 77

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)32 78
Wood against United Kingdom 78

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)33 79
in the case of Xenides-Arestis against Turkey 79

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)34 80
in 25 cases against Portugal relating to the excessive length of judicial proceedings 80

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)35 102

in 31 cases against the Russian Federation mainly concerning conditions of detention in remand prisons

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)11

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Moser against Austria

(Application No. 12643/02, judgment of 21 September 2006, final on 21 December 2006)

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 breach of the applicants' (mother and son born in 2000) right to respect for their family life in that custody of the child was transferred to the Youth Welfare Office without exploring alternative solutions (violation of Article 8); it also concerns the breach of the principle of equality of arms for lack of opportunity for the first applicant to comment on reports of the Youth Welfare Office, the lack of a public hearing and lack of public pronouncement of the decisions (3 violations of Article 6, paragraph 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, within the time-limit set, 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(2010)1

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Moser against Austria

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns a violation of the right to respect for family life of the applicants (mother and son, both Serbian nationals). Eight days after his birth in June 2000, the second applicant was placed with foster-parents by the Youth Welfare Office, and by a decision of 3/12/2000 the Juvenile Court transferred custody to the Youth Welfare Office. By an agreement concluded in 2005, which was still effective when the European Court delivered its judgment, the first applicant was granted visiting rights of two hours a month.

The European Court found this transfer of custody to be in violation of Article 8 for three reasons: first, because the authorities had failed to consider alternative measures allowing the applicants to stay together such as placing them in a mother and child centre; secondly, because regular contacts between the applicants had not been ensured while the proceedings were pending and thirdly, because the first applicant had not been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process (§73 of the judgment). The Youth Welfare Office based its request for a transfer of custody on the first applicant’s lack of financial means and accommodation and her unclear residence status, these reasons being endorsed by the Juvenile Court’s decision.

During the proceedings, the first applicant was not given the appropriate opportunity to comment on reports of the Youth Welfare Office, thus not involving her sufficiently in the decision-making process, this failure leading to a violation of the principle of equality of arms. Furthermore, the applicant did not receive a public hearing nor were the domestic courts' decisions publicly pronounced (3 violations of Article 6§1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

8 000 EUR

6 694,74 EUR

14 694,74 EUR

Paid on 26/01/2007

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages sustained by the first applicant.

In 2005 the foster-parents moved to Tulln, a town situated 36km from Vienna, where the visits are taking place since. The visits are conducted with the help of the social services to ensure that the relationship between the applicants is continued without putting the child in a situation of conflict. The foster-parents are not present during the visits due to the tense relationship between the first applicant and the foster-mother.

In June 2008 the foster-parents divorced. Since then the foster-mother has had sole custody of the child.

1) Proceedings on the first applicant’s request for extended visiting rights:

On 12/07/2007 the first applicant requested an extension of her visiting rights. On 22/05/2009, after having held several hearings, the Tulln District Court dismissed the applicant’s request, essentially on the ground of an expert opinon from a child psychologist appointed by the Court concluding that maintaining the existing visiting rights was in the best interest of the child. On the applicant’s appeal, on 7/10/2009 the St. Pölten Regional Court, after holding a hearing at which the first applicant, the foster-mother and the representative of the social services were heard, decided to extend the monthly visiting rights from two to three hours, and determined that further visits should take place around the applicants’ birthdays and Christmas.

It also ordered the Vienna Youth Welfare Office to inform the first applicant of all important developments concerning the second applicant. It dismissed the first applicant's further request to see her son unaccompanied at shorter intervals. Acknowledging the difficulties incurred by all parties, the court appealed to mutual understanding of the various positions and welcomed the first applicant's reasonable approach towards extending visiting rights smoothly according to the needs of the child.

2) Proceedings on the first applicant’s residence status:

On 15/10/2008 the Ministry of the Interior rejected the first applicant’s request to prolong her residence permit (proceedings having already been pending at the time of the European Court’s judgment) for failure to submit the necessary documents requested by the authorities. On 14/04/2009 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court against this decision. She also requested that suspensive effect be granted, which the Administrative Court granted on 17/04/2009. The proceedings are pending before the Administrative Court.

The Austrian authorities consider that given the direct effect granted to the Convention and the case-law of the European Court in Austria, the Administrative Court will examine the applicant’s situation in the light of the decision of 7/10/2009 concerning her visiting rights and taking into account her rights under Article 8 of the Convention as well as the European Court’s judgment in this case. The authorities moreover give assurances that her rights will be taken into consideration in future decisions concerning her situation with regard to her rights in respect of her child.

      II. General measures

1) Violation of Article 8: The Austrian authorities stated that, considering the direct effect of the Convention and the European Court’s case-law in Austria, the publication of the judgment of the European Court and its dissemination to the competent authorities and courts should prevent similar violations. For this purpose, the Federal Chancellery, on 6/02/2007, sent out a summary of the judgment to the relevant Austrian authorities as well as to Parliament and courts (see http://www.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=20443). A summary version of the judgment was published in German in the Newsletter of the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (NL 2006, p. 226, NL 06/5/02), available online at http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/06_5/06_5_02 together with a link to the Court's judgments in English.

2) Violations of Article 6§1:

a) Equality of arms: The violation appears to be an isolated incident resulting from the particular circumstances of the case. In 2002, in the context of the Buchberger case (Section 6.2), the Austrian authorities provided several decisions of the Supreme Court to illustrate its constant jurisprudence according to which the principle of equality of arms is fully implemented, even in proceedings conducted under the
Non-Contentious Proceedings Act, as in the present case.

b) Lack of a public hearing and of public pronouncement: The reformed Austrian Non-Contentious Proceedings Act (entry into force on 1/01/2005) gives the judge discretion to hold family-law and guardianship proceedings in public and contains criteria for the exercise of such discretion (§ 50 of the judgment). It also allows for public pronouncement of decisions (Section 36 of the reformed Act). In this context, the publication and dissemination of the judgment mentioned above will enable domestic courts to apply theses provisions in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. It is also recalled that the judgments of the European Court against Austria in respect of cases under the Code of Civil Procedure are automatically transmitted to the President of the Supreme Court and the Presidents of the four Courts of Appeal (Oberlandesgerichte) with the request to disseminate it to all subordinate judicial authorities and to inform the authorities directly involved in the violation.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Austria has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)22

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Van Geyseghem and 4 other cases against Belgium

(see details in Appendix)

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 they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern infringements of the right of the applicants, who failed to appear and had not complied with warrants for their arrest, to be defended by a lawyer (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 combined with Article 6 paragraph 3c)), and in the cases of Goedhart, Stift and Stroek, also lack access to a tribunal (violations of Article 6, paragraph 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 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 judgments (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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Van Geyseghem and 4 other cases against Belgium

      Introductory case summary

These cases concern infringements of the applicants' right to defended by a lawyer of their own choosing at different stages of criminal proceedings (first instance, appeal and opposition (appeal on specific grounds of non-representation)), since the courts seized refused, between 1993 and 1998, because of the applicants' failure to appear before the court, to hear their lawyers or take into account the pleadings filed by them on the merits (violations of Article 6§1 combined with Article 6§3c)).

The cases of Stroek, Stift and Goedhart also concern an infringement of the right of access to a court as a result of the decisions of the Cour de cassation declaring the applicants' appeal on points of law inadmissible, since they had not complied with warrants for their arrest (violations of Article 6§1). At the end of the proceedings, the applicants were all sentenced to fines and imprisonment. Moreover, the cases of Stroek and Goedhart, an international arrest warrant was issued out against the applicants.

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Date of judgment

Final on

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Paid on

Van Geyseghem

No 26103/95

21/01/99 - Grand Chamber

21/01/99

   

300 000 BEF

300 000 BEF

31/03/99

Goedhart,

No 34989/97

20/03/01

20/06/01

   

30 000 BEF

30 000 BEF

09/07/01

Stroek L. et C.,

No 36449/97+

20/03/01

20/06/01

   

100 000 BEF

100 000 BEF

30/05/01

Pronk,

No 51338/99

08/07/04

08/10/04

   

7 606 EUR

7 606 EUR

06/09/04

Stift,

No 46848/99

24/02/05

24/05/05

 

3 000 EUR

7 650 EUR

10 650 EUR

11/08/05

b) Individual measures

In the case of Van Geyseghem, the sentence imposed on the applicant has been time-barred since 14/06/98.

In the cases of Stroek and Goedhart, on 29/11/01 the Belgian authorities partly pardoned the applicant, as a result of the international arrest warrants taken out against them have been declared void.

In the Pronk case, the applicant's sentence has been time-barred since 1/10/2008, and in the Stift case, since 29/06/08.

In addition, a law allowing the reopening of criminal proceedings following a judgment of the European Court was passed on 01/04/2007. The Act entered into force 1/12/2007 (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)65 by which the Committee of Ministers closed its examination of the case of Göktepe) and provided for, as a transitional measure, a possibility for applicants concerned by a judgment of the European Court whose execution was still pending before the Committee of Ministers to apply for the reopening of proceedings within six months of its entry into force.

      II. General measures

The Code of Criminal Procedure had been amended by an Act of 12/03/2003, so that it is now established that a lawyer may represent his or her client under all circumstances and that anyone may lodge an appeal on points of law, even if they are not detained in accordance with a judicial decision.

Moreover, the European Court's judgment in the Van Geyseghem case has been widely disseminated with a circular and the Cour de cassation has changed its case law (see judgment of the Cour de cassation of 16/03/1999, case No P980861N).

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that Belgium has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)33

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Watson against France

(Application No. 31677/96, Interim resolution DH(2000)20 of 14 February 2000)

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

Having regard to Interim Resolution DH(2000)20, adopted on 14 February 2000 in the case of Watson against France, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the opening of letters sent to the applicant by the secretariat of the former European Commission of Human Rights (heeinafter referred to as “the Commission”) and by a member of the European Parliament (see details in Appendix), and to make public the report of the Commission;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 27 September 1999;

Whereas at the 704th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 10 April 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 5 000 FRF in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1 000 FRF in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 6 000 FRF, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 14 February and 10 April 2000, having regard to France’s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of former Article 32 of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the Committee of Minister’s decision of 10 April 2000 (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded, 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) and considering the decision taken at the 928th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (21 June 2005), that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

      Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3

Information about the measures taken in the case of

Watson against France

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns an illegal interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, on account of the fact that, while he was detained, the prison authorities opened letters addressed to him by the secretariat of the former European Commission on Human Rights and a member of the European Parliament, between 1995 and 1998, although this was explicitly forbidden by the domestic applicable law since 1994 as regards the Commission and since 12 May 1997 as regards the European Parliament (violation of Article 8).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

5 000 FRF

1 000 FRF

6 000 FRF

Paid on 30/08/2000, default interests paid on 2/07/2003

b) Individual measures

The violation has stopped and the applicant has been awarded a just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered and the costs and expenses incurred. No further individual measure appears to be necessary.

      II. General measures

As regards the correspondence with the organs of the Convention, this case is similar to the case of A.B. against France (application No. 22135/93, finding of violation established by Committee of Ministers’ decision of 16 May 1996, Final Resolution DH(1997)482): following the introduction of the application in the case of A.B., the Minister of Justice had sent a note, dated 20 June 1994, to all prison directors specifying that detainees' correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights, whatever the organ (ie, the president, a member or the Secretariat) should remain unopened. These instructions were still in force at the time of the facts in the case of Watson.

As regards the correspondence with the European Parliament, an order (arrêté) of 12 May 1997 extended to the correspondence with members of the European Parliament the exemption from control.

These safeguards have been integrated into Section A40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which accordingly provides inter alia that members of the European Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights are listed among the administrative authorities with whom detainees can correspond in sealed envelope (see also Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)50 in the case Slimane-Kaïd against France). This part of the provision has not been affected by the further amendments to the Code.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under former Article 32 of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)44

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Mocie and Desserprit against France

(Application No. 46096/99, judgment of 8 April 2003, final on 8 July 2003;

application No. 76977/01, judgment of 28 November 2006, final 28 February 2007)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings before military pensions tribunals of incapacity (violations of Article 6, paragraph 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 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 judgments (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;

      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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)4

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Mocie & Desserprit against France

      Introductory case summary

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before military pensions tribunals of incapacity (violations of Article 6§1).

In the Mocie case, the first set of proceedings began in 1988 and was still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (14 years and 10 months); the second began in 1990 and ended in 1998 (almost 8 years). The European Court underlined that in view of the applicant’s lack of means and the deterioration of his health, his claims for benefits were vital to him and the authorities should have been particularly diligent in dealing with them.

In the Desserprit case, the proceedings began in 1988 and ended in 2004 (more than 15 years).

      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

Mocie (46096/99)

-

10 000 euros

482,33 euros

1 482,33 euros

Paid on 6/10/2003

Desserprit (76977/01)

-

15 000 euros

500 euros

15 500

euros

Paid on 16/03/2007

b) Individual measures

In both cases, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. Concerning the only set of proceedings that was still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment - the first set of proceedings in the Mocie case - the French authorities indicated that it was closed by a judgment of the Conseil d’Etat delivered on 9/06/2008. No other individual measure is thus necessary.

      II. General measures

Proceedings before military pensions tribunals are specific and take place partly before civil courts, partly before administrative courts. Thus, reference should be made to the measures taken to avoid excessive length of civil proceedings (see the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)39 in the case of C.R. and 9 other cases concerning the length of civil proceedings) and to the measures taken to avoid excessive length of administrative proceedings, including before the Conseil d’Etat (see the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)121 in the case of Raffi and 30 other cases concerning the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts, and the lack of an effective remedy).

Furthermore, it emerges from these final resolutions that applicants considering that their case is taking too long to be settled before the administrative courts dispose of an appeal founded on the State's responsibility for defective functioning of the public justice service (a remedy which was found to be effective by the European Court, in its judgment in Broca and Texier-Micault v. France of 21/10/2003, for both pending and completed proceedings). Furthermore, in cases of excessive length of proceedings before the civil courts, an effective compensatory remedy is provided by Article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation.

It should also be added that since Law No. 2002-73 of 17/01/2002 (“Loi de modernisation sociale”), the appeals on points of law against decisions delivered by the Cours régionales des pensions (appeal courts) are made before the Conseil d’Etat, the Commission spéciale de cassation des pensions (Special Pensions Appeals Commission) having been suppressed (compare with Final Resolution DH(98)361 in the Sass case).

Both judgments were published on the Legifrance website and sent out to the Conseil d’Etat, which ensures the dissemination of the European Court’s case-law to all administrative courts. They were also disseminated via the website of the Service of European and International Affairs, which is accessible to all national courts and departments of the Ministry of Justice.

The Desserprit judgment was sent in particular to the General Prosecutor of the Besançon Court of Appeal.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)55

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Vetter against France

(Application No. 59842/00, judgment of 31 May 2005, final on 31 August 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 infringement of the right to respect for private life (use of listening devices in an apartment by the criminal police, in 1997, which was not “in accordance with the law”) (violation of Article 8) and the unfairness of proceedings before the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation (failure to communicate the report of the reporting judge to the applicant or to his lawyer, whereas this report had been submitted to the advocate-general) (violation of Article 6, paragraph 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(2010)5

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Vetter against France

      Introductory case summary

This case concerns an interference in the applicant's right to respect for his private life. The applicant was suspected of intentional murder and the police, acting on the instructions of the examining magistrate had in 1997 bugged the apartment of a third person regularly visited by the applicant. The proceedings resulted in 2002 in a final judgment sentencing the applicant to 20 years' imprisonment.

The European Court found in particular that as French law with regard to the planting of microphones did not set out clearly enough the extent of the authorities' discretion or how this discretion should be exercised, the audio surveillance at issue was not “in accordance with the law” (violation of Article 8).

The case also concerns the unfairness of the proceedings before the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation, due to the failure to communicate the report of the reporting judge to the applicant or to his lawyer, whereas this report had been submitted to the advocate-general (violation of Article 6§1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1 500 euros

-

1 500 euros

Paid on 18/01/2006, including default interests.

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

Concerning the violation of Article 6§1, the applicant had the possibility to apply for the re-opening of his cassation appeal on the basis of Articles L 626-1 ff of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Concerning Article 8, the authorities indicated that, following the request of the State Prosecutor, the evidence (including the recordings) was destroyed on 09/12/2004.

      II. General measures

1) Violation of Article 8: The European Court considered that eavesdropping on conversations using planted microphones must be based on a “law” which is particularly precise (see §26 of the judgment of the European Court).

1) Law No. 2004-204 of 09/03/2004: on 01/10/2004, subsequent to the facts of the case, a new law entered into force, adapting justice to the changes in crimes. This law includes measures relating to the use of listening devices in proceedings relating to organised crime (Article 706-96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) :

As regards the categories of people who might be subjected to such measures and the nature of the offences which might warrant them, Article 706-96 of the CCP refers to Article 706-73 of the same Code for the definition of crimes and offences for which the use of technical operations aiming at recording of sound and pictures is allowed. The Article also defines the scope in relation to persons against whom such measures may be directed by laying down, first, that the technical operations set up are for listening, transcription, transmission and recording of words spoken privately or confidentially, in private or public premises or vehicles or of the image of one or more persons whilst in private premises and, secondly, that such operations are allowed in a vehicle or private premises without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the premises or vehicle or the person residing in the premises or any other person that has a right over the premises or the vehicle. Moreover, Article 706-96 specifies that sound recording or video operations cannot concern places/premises specified in Article 56-1, 56-2 and 56-3 (lawyers' offices, press or broadcasting companies, doctors' surgeries, notary's, solicitors or bailiffs' offices) or take place in the vehicle, office or home of persons specified in Article 100-7, which concerns, in specific circumstances, clearly defined persons (lawyers' offices, parliamentarians, magistrates). It appears that this law applies to visiting rooms in detention centres (public places) in proceedings relating to organised crime. Finally, the law provides for a limit to the duration of those operations, the conditions for drawing up summaries of conversations overheard, as well as the circumstances in which recordings are erased or destroyed.

2) Case-law of the Cour de cassation: The authorities submitted two judgments of the Cour de cassation dated 01/03/2006 and 21/03/2007, which demonstrate the due control exercised by this court of this new legislative framework, referring to Article 8 of the Convention as well as to the European Court's case-law.

3) Decision of the Conseil constitutionnel (Decision n° 2004-492 DC of 2/03/2004): Seised of the law adapting justice to the changes in crimes, the Conseil constitutionnel found that different offences relating to organised crime enumerated in the new Article 706-73 of the CPP were defined precisely enough and presented sufficiently serious and complex character to justify exceptional procedures in the framework of the investigation or prosecution. The Conseil constitutionnel verified that contested operations (including the recording of images and sounds in private or public premises) would be submitted to a decision of the judge of investigation and liberties or the investigating judge.

4) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the Legifrance website and disseminated to all domestic courts via the website of the Service of European and International Affairs.

2) Violation of Article 6§1: This aspect of the case presents similarities to those of Reinhardt and Slimane-Kaïd (n° 22921/93, Resolution DH(98)306) and Slimane-Kaïd No. 2 (No. 48943/99, Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)13). The Cour de Cassation has changed the way in which cases submitted to it are investigated and judged. The report of the reporting judge fixing the legal content of the case is now communicated with the file to the prosecution and to the parties.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)66

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Wisse against France

(Application No. 71611/01, judgment of 20 December 2005, final on 20 March 2006)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the recording of detainees' conversations with their relatives in detention centres' visiting rooms from November 1998 to February 1999, which was not “in accordance with the law” (violation of Article 8) (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;

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(2010)6

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Wisse against France

      Introductory case summary

This case concerns a breach of the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life in that from November 1998 to February 1999, while they were in detention on remand, their conversations with their relatives in visiting rooms were recorded (violation of Article 8). The criminal proceedings against them resulted, in 2002, in the applicants being sentenced respectively to 25 and 20 years imprisonment by the Ille-et-Vilaine Assize Court (first degree of jurisdiction). They did not appeal this decision.

According to the European Court, the systematic recording of conversations in a visiting room for purposes other than prison security is a denial of the sole purpose of such facilities, namely to allow detainees to maintain some degree of “private life”, including the privacy of conversations with their families. In this respect the European Court considered that French law did not indicate with sufficient clarity how and to what extent the authorities could interfere with detainees' private lives, or the scope and manner of exercise of their powers of discretion in that sphere.

      I. Individual measures

In its (partial) decision on the admissibility of this application, the European Court rejected the applicants' complaint that the criminal proceedings had been unfair on account of the use of the recordings as evidence against them (complaint under Article 6§1) for non exhaustion of domestic remedies.

In its judgment, the European Court considered that the finding of the violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants.

Concerning the fate of the recordings, the authorities indicated that Article 706-102 provides the destruction of sound or video recordings under the responsibility of the Procureur de la République or of the Procureur général upon expiry of the prescription period for the public action. An official report of the destruction is produced. This disposition is, as a procedural rule, of immediate applicability even to offences committed prior to the law, and can thus be applied to the present case.

      II. General measures

Concerning the general measures this case is similar to the case Vetter (application no. 59842/00) CM/ResDH(2010)5.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)77

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Mathony against Luxembourg

(Application No. 15048/03, judgment of 15 February 2007, final on 15 May 2007)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a lack of objective impartiality of a criminal court, due to the fact that the judges who convicted the applicant had already assessed the applicant’s acts before, in other proceedings (violation of article 6, paragraph 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 within the time-limit set, 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(2010)7

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Mathony against Luxembourg

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant and in particular the lack of objective impartiality of the court which convicted him (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

In March 2001, the applicant was caught driving without a licence, his licence having been withdrawn. His car was temporarily seized and the magistrates refused to grant him the lifting of this seizure. In July 2001 the applicant was disqualified from driving for 12 months and his vehicle was confiscated. He appealed against the disqualification.

By judgment of 17 December 2001, final on 21 November 2002 after the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal to the Court of Cassation, the Court of Appeal, composed of the same judges who had refused the request for lifting of the seizure, upheld the first-instance judgment.

The Court considered that, in the circumstances of the case, the impartiality of the trial court could have been open to genuine doubt in that the same judges had previously refused the applicant’s request for the release of his car from seizure, basing their decision in particular on the applicant’s conduct and the “gravity of the offence”. It therefore found that the applicant’s fears in that regard could be considered objectively justified.

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1 000 euros

-

1 000 euros

Paid on 21/06/2007

b) Individual measures

The driving ban has expired and the non-pecuniary damage sustained was compensated by the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court. Moreover, even if the European Court considered the applicant’s fears objectively justified, it did not find in this case any subjective impartiality. Thus it does not seem that the violation arose from shortcomings sufficiently serious to raise any real doubt as to the outcome of the domestic proceedings in question.

      II. General measures

The European Court recalled that the mere fact that a judge had already taken decisions before the trial does not, as such, justify doubts as to his or her impartiality. The finding of the Court in this case was related to the specific circumstances of the case: the judges who convicted the applicant had in fact already given their opinion on the applicant’s behaviour prior to the criminal proceedings, when they examined his request for the restitution of his car (See for example a contrario the decision of 18/01/2001 in Revoldini and others against Luxembourg).

The judgment of the European Court was sent by the Ministry of Justice, on 03/05/2007, to the State Prosecutor General, who was asked to disseminate it to the magistrates concerned. The State Prosecutor General confirmed that the judgment had indeed been sent to all magistrates concerned. The judgment has been published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice. Finally, the judgment has also been published in Codex - March 2007 (www.codex-online.com). The authorities of Luxembourg indicated that it will now be for the domestic courts which grant direct effect to the Convention, and in particular for criminal courts, to ensure - with respect to the composition of the relevant court in each case - that the Mathony judgment is respected.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no measure is required in respect of the applicant, that similar violations will be prevented by the direct effect granted by the domestic courts to the Convention and the European Court’s case-law, and that Luxembourg has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)88

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others and Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and others against Moldova

(Applications Nos. 45701/99 and 952/03, judgments of 13/12/01 and 27/02/2007,

final on 27/03/02 and 27/05/2007)

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 authorities’ refusal to recognise the applicant Churches, the consequences of this non-recognition, the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of article 9 and of article 13 taken in conjunction with article 9), as well as the delayed enforcement of a judgment ordering the payment of compensation awarded for the refusal of registration (violation of Article 1 of the 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 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 the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments, including, if necessary, any interest on overdue payments (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 the six Recommendations9 adopted by the Committee of Ministers to improve the implementation of the Convention at national level and the execution of the judgments of the Court;

Recalling its Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)12 as well as the other decisions adopted in these cases;

Noting with satisfaction the registration and the rapid recognition of the applicant Churches which allowed them to obtain legal personality, to bring legal proceedings with a view to protecting their interests and to starting the registration proceedings of their component parts;

Regretting the time which has been required to make the necessary changes within the legislative framework and to adapt relevant practices, and to solve the problems encountered for the effective registration of the component parts of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, as well as the time necessary to resolve the other issues raised in these cases;

Welcoming however the important efforts accomplished by the authorities especially after the adoption of the new Law on Religious Denominations in 2007, with a view to ensure the coherence of the system put in place and its conformity to the Convention and the Court’s case law ;

Noting in particular the changes of practices and the amendments of the Code of Contraventions (2008-2009);

Noting also that the problems initially encountered by the new Service for registration of religious denominations appear to be overcome and that the registration of the component parts of the religious denominations in question, notably those of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, could thus continue, as provided for by the law and by the requirements of the Convention, with access, if necessary, to effective remedies;

Welcoming, in general, the measures taken to reinforce the direct effect of the Convention and of the Court’s case law as well as the government’s determination, on the one hand, to continue publication and training activities necessary to this end, and, on the other hand, to undertake any other measure necessary to the good functioning of the new system;

      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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)8

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments

in the cases ofMetropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others

and Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and others against Moldova

      Introductory summaries of cases

The case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others concerns a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion, due to the refusal by the Moldovan Government, confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 9/12/1997, to recognise and to register the applicant Church, so that the latter could neither organise itself nor operate, and lacking legal personality it could not bring legal proceedings to protect its interests. Moreover, the non-recognition of the applicant Church led to the impossibility for its members to meet and to carry on religious activities or to defend themselves against acts of intimidation (violation of Article 9).

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy to redress the consequences of the violation of Article 9, as the applicant Church whilst being unrecognised by the government, was unable to enjoy any right which it could assert before the courts. In addition, at the time of the events, the applicable law did not contain any specific provision governing the procedure for recognition of religious denominations or making remedies available in the event of a dispute (violation of Article 13).

The case of Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and others concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of religion on the grounds of the government’s persistent refusal to register the applicant Church, despite a final judgment of 30/08/2001 of the Court of Appeal and of the repeated requests from the Enforcement Department for the registration of the applicant Church (violation of Article 9).

The non-execution of the decision of the Court of Appeal has also constituted a violation of the right to an effective remedy (violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 9).

The case relates also to a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 30/08/2001 in the part awarding compensation to the applicant church in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the authorities' refusal to register it (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

      I. Procedure

In view of the importance of the issues raised by the Court's judgment in the case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, the question of freedom of religion was not only rapidly integrated, in the Committee of Ministers' supervision of the execution of the Court's judgment under Article 46 of the Convention, but also in the Council of Europe's political dialogue with Moldova.

In the context of this dialogue, a series of reports on different draft laws presented by the Moldovan government were carried out by independent experts designated by the Council of Europe. The reports were to assess the compliance of the drafts with Council of Europe standards in general and the Convention requirements in particular. They were carried out in close co-operation with the Secretariat, in particular the Department for the Execution of judgments of the Court.

For an in-depth examination of various issues raised under Article 46 of the Convention (both those relating to the different draft laws presented and those relating to individual measures), additional expert-reports were carried out by the Execution Department and visits to Chişinău were organised in 2004-2006, notably in co-operation with independent experts.

The solution finally chosen by the Moldovan authorities, in particular the maintenance of the idea – which was not in conformity with the advice of the experts and the Secretariat - of a right to registration only for religious communities with a minimum of 100 members (even if these could create components with a minimum of 10 members), raised a number of additional issues under the Convention, and the Committee of Ministers also expressed certain concerns – see below general measures.

No special procedure was organised for the supervision of the execution of the case of Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and others, which was joined, for the purposes of execution, to the case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others.

      II. 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

Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, No. 5701/99

-

20,000 €

7,025 €

27,025 €

Paid on 2/07/2002

Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and others, No. 952/03

10,000 €

2,000 €

 

Paid on 8/08/2007

b) Individual measures

1. Case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others

1.1 Recognition of the applicant Church and its entities and the protection of its religious activities

Following the European Court's judgment, the Moldovan authorities recognised and registered the applicant Church on 30/07/2002 in accordance with the Moldovan Law on Religious Denominations, as amended on 12/07/2002 (see below general measures). The Church thereby acquired legal personality, allowing it, and its members, to protect its interests usefully, including pursuing its claims as regards property entitlements. This registration also allowed the beginning of the registration process of different components of the applicant Church.

According to the information provided by the Moldovan authorities in March 2006, several component parts of the applicant Church have been registered, of which 86 parishes, 9 monasteries, 2 social missions with 73 sub-divisions, 2 seminaries (one theological and one monastic) and a school of ecclesiastical arts. The applicant Church also disposed at the time of more than 120 rectories with almost 160 priests. As of 01/03/2007, 293 entities of the applicant Church had been registered.

However, between 2004 and 2006, the applicant Church informed the Committee that it had on several occasions encountered obstacles to the registration of some of its parishes. In particular, it claimed in a number of cases that the local authorities refused to issue the certificate of presence on their territories required to obtain registration. This obstacle to the registration was eventually abolished following the entry into force of the new Law on Religious Denominations on 17/08/2007 (see below general measures).

Between November 2006 and May 2007 the applicant Church also submitted complaints before the domestic courts, concerning the refusals by the Service for religious denominations to register certain of its parishes. These proceedings were joined by decision of the Court of Appeal of 31/10/2007 which also designated the Ministry of Justice as a defendant party in this case. By decision of 25/02/2008, the Court of Appeal ordered the Ministry of Justice to register the parishes of the applicant Church, but the Ministry submitted an appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice, which accepted it. On 23/07/2008 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal, mainly on procedural grounds and ordered the re-examination of the case by the Court of Appeal. However, the representative of the applicant Church did not appear at the hearing and the case was struck off its list on 9/12/2008.

Despite the adoption of the new Law on Religious Denominations in August 2008, in June and October 2009, the applicant Church denounced the persisting problems of registration of its parishes, notably alleging the introduction of requirements unforeseen in the law, or interfering with the relationships between the “mother” Church and the local components, or through other measures such as engaging ex officio graphologist al tests of the authenticity of signatures submitted. It has also complained of the continuation of a more general hostile campaign against it launched by state authorities.

In response the Moldovan authorities have indicated that with the entry into force of the new Law on Religious Denominations, the new registration system within the Ministry of Justice began to function only in the beginning of 2008 (see general measures) and that the system had admittedly had certain initial problems in ensuring the rapid management of registration requests. However, these problems were discussed with the representatives of religious communities at a round table organised by the Ministry of Justice in July 2008 in Chişinău. These discussions resulted in the publication in February 2009 of a set of guidelines with examples to assist in formulating registration requests so as to comply with the new legislation. A number of further registrations have also taken place since, both of “mother” churches and their local components, including two local components of the applicant Church. Besides, the government has underlined that none of the problems raised by the applicants under the new Law on Religious Denominations before the Committee of Ministers were previously raised before the domestic courts. The only judicial proceedings engaged concerned the old law and were eventually terminated as the applicant Church did not appear at the hearing (see above). The government has nevertheless communicated the complaints, as formulated before the Committee of Ministers, to the new Service for the registration of the religious denominations so that it can investigate possible additional assistance to applicant Church.

The government has also given some explanations about the allegations concerning the alleged negative official campaign it would have conducted against the applicant Church and its members. It has in particular stressed its neutrality in religious matters. As regards the applicant Church's reference to certain individual incidents, not least regarding the right of foreign citizens linked with the applicant Church to enter Moldova or work there for the Church, the government has stressed that these incidents were based on failure to respect Moldovan legislation regarding the right to enter and work in Moldova. Notwithstanding these incidents, all the persons concerned subsequently received residence permits and administrative fines were cancelled.

The government stressed that under the new Law on Religious Denominations (Article 8), acts which hinder the free exercise of a religious cult or which spread religious hatred should be punished. Also, the new Criminal Code, adopted in 2002, expressly prohibits interference with freedom of religion, including discrimination on religious grounds by persons in positions of responsibility. In addition, acts which infringe the rights enshrined in the new Law on Religious Denominations may be challenged before the courts (Article 9). The government believes that this protection should effectively impede any intimidating campaigns against the applicant Church.

1.2 The protection of other interests, notably property interests:

Since it was awarded legal personality, in July 2002, the applicant Church is able to protect its own interests, in particular its patrimony.

Already in February 2002, the applicant Church could challenge a government decision (of 26/09/2001 – see the Court’s judgment, §42) approving an amendment to the statute of the Moldovan Metropolitan Church by which it proclaimed itself to be the legal successor to the former Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia (which ceased its activity in 1944). The applicant Church was claiming that such approval allegedly infringed its property. On 14/04/2004, the Enlarged Collegium of the Supreme Court, sitting as a cassation court, confirmed its earlier decision of 02/02/2004 by which it cancelled the government's decision of 26/09/2001. However, this decision did not thereby recognise the succession rights of the appellant Church. The registration decision appealed against was cancelled merely on the ground that, in the light of the legislation currently in force, the former Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia had no legal successor at the moment of cessation of its activity in 1944.

The government underlines that this decision was only taken in response to a request for registration of statutes of a religious denomination and does not prejudice the possibilities of the applicant Church to protect its property interests in other proceedings directly concerned with such property rights as the Church may claim.

The applicant Church also complained that the Moldovan Government refused to restore the church archives illegally confiscated and nationalised.

In response, the government indicated that all documents were deposited at the National Archives and are part of the State Archives Fund which is state property, constitutes national patrimony, and consequently enjoys the protection of the state so that historically important documents may not be destroyed or otherwise disposed of and may be consulted by anyone. The archived documents are open to the public, to physical or moral persons, i.e. including the Metropolitan church of Bessarabia, which may obtain certified copies without restriction.

2. Case of Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and others

The applicant Church was registered as ordered on 16/08/2007 and did not submit any further request in respect of individual measures.

In view of the different developments referred to above, as well as of the general measures undertaken and explained below, the Moldovan authorities consider that they have taken sufficient action to satisfy to their obligations under Article 46 as far as individual measures are concerned.

      III. General measures

1. The reform of the Law on Religious Denominations: recognition of religious freedom and setting-up of effective remedies

The first amendments to the Law on Religious Denominations were brought by Law No. 1220-XV which entered into force on 12/07/2002. These amendments were, however, insufficient to prevent similar violations, inasmuch as they did not sufficiently integrate the right to an effective remedy in each situation, nor the requirement of proportionality.

Between March 2003 and February 2006, six draft laws were submitted to the Committee of Ministers and examined by independent experts appointed by the Council of Europe and by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court (see under “Procedure” above). They have in particular stressed the importance of not reserving registration and recognition only for larger groups, as well as that of providing effective remedies. In March 2006, the Committee of Ministers adopted an Interim Resolution (ResDH(2006)12), urging the Moldovan authorities rapidly to enact the necessary legislation and to adopt the required implementation measures without further delay.

In June 2007, the Committee of Ministers expressed its regrets as to the fact that the final draft Law on Religious Denominations was not communicated to the Committee of Ministers and declared that it expected that the findings of the Court have been taken into account in the new Law on Religious Denominations as well as different expertise done by the experts of the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers also noted the assurances given by the Moldovan authorities on this matter.

The new Law on Religious Denominations was adopted by the Parliament on 11/05/2007 and entered into force on 17/08/2007.

After examining the text, the Committee of Ministers noted that although the new Law on Religious Denominations presented many improvements compared to previous drafts, some of the recommendations of the Council of Europe experts and certain of the Committee of Ministers’ own preoccupations had still not been taken into consideration (in particular, the law had maintained the requirement of a minimum of 100 members for the registration of a religious denomination and the registration procedure continued to contain a number of confusing provisions). The Committee accordingly stressed the importance of conceiving the proposals for the implementation legislation and regulations so as to ensure that the new global regulatory framework fully respected the requirements of the Convention. The Committee also stressed the importance of ensuring that the judicial remedies provided were fully effective.

2. The additional reform work and special training activities

Following the adoption of the new Law on Religious Denominations, by government decision No. 1130 of 26/10/2007, the former State Service for religious denominations was dissolved and all registration files were transferred to the Ministry of Justice, which started its work on 10/01/2008. Simultaneously, the government abolished its order of 1994 which had made registration of component parts of recognised cults dependent on a certificate of presence from the local authorities. The government rapidly provided additional information with first examples of registration according to the new system.

The Committee of Ministers noted these developments, but recalled the need to clarify a number of aspects, in particular those related to the rights of religious groups or denominations which did not fulfil the requirements set by the new law to obtain their registration. In this respect it encouraged the rapid organisation of meetings between the Secretariat and the Moldovan authorities to clarify the outstanding issues.

A first meeting was held on 8 and 9/09/2008 in Chişinău between the Secretariat and the relevant Moldovan authorities, including the Ministry of Justice, the Service for registration of religious denominations, the Ministry of the Interior, the Prosecutor's office, judges of the Supreme Court, the National Institute of Justice, etc.

The Secretariat presented its conclusions of these meetings in Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2008)47rev (December 2008). It found that:

      - the control of the proper functioning of the new Service for registration of religious denominations improved;

      - assurances had been given by the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the Chief Prosecutor that also non-registered religious groups enjoyed freedom of religion and State protection;

      - such groups could use other forms of associations than those under the new Law on Religious Denominations to protect their interests.

However, a number of questions were found to be outstanding, notably as regards the registration procedure (allegations of unjustified registration requirements), the recognition of unregistered groups (see e.g. of the Court’s judgment in the Talgat Masaev case criticising sanctions imposed in 2004 on an unregistered group which had held religious service in private premises) and the scope and justifications of a number of rights and duties obtained through registration. There also appeared to be a need to harmonise the new law with a number of other laws, including the Code of Contraventions, in order to fully safeguard freedom of religion.

In response, the government informed the Committee of Ministers that the registration procedure has been clarified through the issue in February 2009 of a set of guidelines (see individual measures above). The government also indicated that the allegations of unjustified registration requirements should first be examined in the context of judicial review of the registration process (which would clearly ensure respect for the Court requirements).

As regards the freedom of religion of unregistered groups, the government renewed before the Committee of Ministers its undertakings made during the Secretariat’s visits and also indicated its intention to amend the Code of Contraventions accordingly. Awaiting the adoption by Parliament of the amendments prepared by the government in 2009, a special inter-ministerial co-ordination group composed of representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the Prosecutor General's Office was created and met twice in 2009. Within this group clear instructions have been given to police and prosecutors to apply the existing Code in accordance with the proposed amendments.

The new draft laws (abolishing the sanction of expulsion in case of disrespect of the requirement of prior authorisation for certain religious activities in public by foreigners and limiting the punishable activities to activities exercised in violation of the new Law on Religious Denominations) have been adopted too late to be included in the new Code of Contraventions, adopted by the Parliament in January 2009, in force as from 31/05/2009. These new texts (Article 54 §§ 2 and 3) were however approved by the Parliament in November 2009.

3. The effectiveness of the remedies set up

The government underlined that at present the new Law on Religious Denominations ensures judicial review of the registration procedure of religious denominations and of their component parts, including in cases of refusal of registration, of suspension of their activities or of their liquidation. In the course of the different contacts taken with relevant authorities a clear consensus also emerged that the law, read together with the Law on Administrative Procedure, also provides access to judicial review in case of absence of reply or unreasonable delay in providing a reply.

It also recalled that the new law provides clear judicial protection of other aspects of freedom of religion (see above, under individual measures above).

In view of the violation in the case of Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova, the government has also stressed that this case was an isolated incident which will not be repeated. The special questions linked with the delayed enforcement of the judicial decisions awarding of damages which also arose in that case are dealt with in the context of the Committee's examination of the group of cases Luntre and others (application No. 2916/02, 1086th meeting, June 2010).

4. Publication and other measures to improve the direct effect of the Court’s judgments

In addition to legislative and other measures mentioned above, the government also stressed the important efforts it has made to improve the direct effect of the Court and of the case-law of the Court in Moldova at national level, including the recent declaration of 30/10/2009 made by the Moldovan Parliament regarding the state of justice in the Republic of Moldova and measures required to be taken in order to improve the situation.

From this point of view, the judgments were rapidly published in the Official Journal and posted on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.gov.md). Besides, special efforts were displayed to improve judges’ and prosecutors’ training on the requirements of the Convention on issue of freedom of religion, notably with the help of the National Institute of Justice (a special training session was organised with the participation of the Department for the execution of Judgements in June 2009). Other activities are foreseen.

The government believes that these activities will contribute to an application of the new Law on Religious Denominations, as well as of the rights and obligations acquired by the registration, in conformity with the requirements of the Convention interpreted in the light of the Court’s jurisprudence and, in particular, with the principle of proportionality.

The government is aware of the importance attached to the continuation of these activities and commits itself to support and to undertake any other measure necessary to the good functioning of the system.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations to those found in these cases and that Moldova has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)910

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Venema against Netherlands

(Application No. 35731/97, judgment of 17 December 2002, final on 17 March 2003)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the authorities’ unjustified failure to allow the applicants to participate in the decision-making process having led to a provisional placement of their daughter into public care (violation of Article 8) (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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants 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(2010)9

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Venema against Netherlands

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns a breach of the right of the applicants (parents and their minor daughter) to respect for their family life in that they were not involved in the decision-making process before the Child Welfare Board and the Juvenile Judge which led, in 1995, to the adoption of provisional orders for the daughter to be placed away from her parents.

The European Court considered that this measure, taken on account of the mother's alleged psychological problems which, in addition, had not been properly substantiated, formed the basis of the regrettable separation of the parents and their daughter for a period of five months and eighteen days. For the Court, it was crucial for the parents to be able to put forward their own point of view at some stage before the making of the provisional order (violation of Article 8).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

15 000 EUR

22 475 EUR

37 475 EUR

Paid on 11/02/2003

b) Individual measures

After a separation of five months and eighteen days, the family was reunited on 22 May 1995. The consequences of the violation found have been redressed by the European Court through the award of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages suffered.

      II. General measures

The procedures followed by the Child Welfare Board were radically changed and new rules were laid down in a policy framework “Standards 2000”, an updated version of which entered into force on 1/05/2003. The new procedures provide inter alia the involvement of parents in the decision-making process concerning the placement of children into care as well as an intervention of a behavioural psychologist and a legal expert in child protection cases. As a matter of course, the Child Welfare Board now involves the parents of the child in its investigations; it may deviate from this rule only in highly exceptional circumstances and it always consults experts from different disciplines before doing so. The policy framework is a binding instruction from the Minister of Justice to the Child Welfare Board.

Moreover, the European Court’s judgment was published broadly and disseminated.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Netherlands have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1011

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Salah Sheekh against Netherlands

(Application No.1948/04, judgment of 11 January 2007, final on 23 May 2007)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the risk of ill-treatment encountered by the applicant in case his expulsion to Somalia envisaged by the respondent state had been conducted (violation of Article 3) (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;

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(2010)10

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Salah Sheekh against Netherlands

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the Netherlands authorities' decision of 2005 refusing the applicant (a Somali national and a member of the Ashraf or Reer Hamar minority) protection under the principle of non-refoulement following the rejection of the applicant’s application for asylum (violation of Article 3).

The authorities considered, on the basis of regular country reports drawn up by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, that the applicant would run no real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if he returned to Somalia and that his forced return would not amount to unduly harsh treatment because he could settle in one of the areas of Somalia identified as “relatively safe”.

The European Court found that there could be no guarantee that the applicant, once in a “relatively safe” area, would be allowed to stay in that territory. In the absence of any monitoring of deported, rejected asylum seekers, the Netherlands authorities could have no means of verifying whether or not the applicant had succeeded in gaining admittance there. In view of the positions taken by the de facto authorities in the “relatively safe” areas, the Court considered it unlikely that the applicant would be allowed to settle there. There was a real chance that he would be removed and obliged to go to areas considered unsafe (§143).

The Court also took the view that the applicant's treatment before he left Somalia could be classified as inhuman within the meaning of Article 3 and that there was no indication that if he returned to Somalia he would be in a significantly different situation from that from which he had fled (§146).

Lastly, the Court considered that the authorities’ assessment of the applicant's treatment in Somalia had been meted out arbitrarily. If the protection offered by Article 3 were not to be rendered illusory, he could not be required to establish any further special distinguishing feature other than his membership of the Ashraf minority to show that he was at risk. Thus, the Court found that the expulsion of the applicant to Somalia as envisaged by the Netherlands authorities would be in violation of Article 3 (§148).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

The applicant has not submitted any claim for just satisfaction before the European Court.

On 10/03/2006 the applicant was granted a residence permit for asylum purposes on the basis of a temporary categorical protection policy (Article 29§1(d) of the Aliens Act 2000) adopted by the Minister of Justice on 24/06/2005 in respect of asylum seekers coming from certain parts of Somalia. Following the European Court’s judgment, the applicant has been granted a new residence permit for asylum purposes on the basis of Article 29§1(b) of the Aliens Act 2000 (risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), which is valid from June 2005 to June 2010. This residence permit is, in principle, renewable. In addition, the Dutch authorities gave assurances that they will apply the principles of their reformed non-refoulement/expulsion policy in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention (see below under General Measures) in their future decisions concerning the applicant.

      II. General measures

1) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was published and annotated in numerous legal journals (AB Rechtspraak Bestuursrecht (2007,76), Jurisprudentie Vreemdelingenzaken (2007, 30) and NJCM- Bulletin (2007, pp. 111-113 and 179-194), and the Nederlands Juristenblad (2007-7) issued a special edition on the case. The judgment was broadcast on radio and television. According to the Dutch authorities, in view of the direct effect of the European Court’s judgments in the Netherlands, these measures will allow all authorities concerned to align their practice to the present judgment.

2) Changes in non-refoulement/expulsion policy regarding the assessment of a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3: According to a letter of 22/06/2007 from the State Secretary of Justice to the Dutch parliament, the assessment of an alleged risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in asylum procedure was adapted. Individuals are still required to show that they have been singled out for persecution, but the overall situation in a country, including the general circumstances (i.e. the fact of being a member of a minority) were included in the assessment. Furthermore, specific groups of asylum seekers (“vulnerable minority groups”, including, inter alia, the Reer Hamar (Ashraf) in Somalia) were identified where the general situation in their country of origin suggested that upon their return they would be in risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. These asylum seekers only have to adduce minor indications to qualify for a residence permit for asylum purposes under Article 29§1(b) of the Aliens Act 2000. This directive was published in the Dutch Government Gazette on 3/08/2007. Finally, assessment is no longer based solely on the country reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but also increasingly on other sources.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted, have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the Netherlands has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1112

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Sanchez Cardenas against Norway

(Application No. 12148/03, judgment of 4 October 2007, final on 4 January 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 judgment transmitted by the Court once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the prejudice to the applicant's honour and reputation and to his private and family life arising from suspicions expressed in a decision by a court hearing his application for visiting rights, to the effect that he had sexually abused one of his sons (violation Art.8) (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, within the time-limit set, 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(2010)11

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Sanchez Cardenas against Norway

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life due to the reasoning of a decision by the Gulating High Court in 2002, refusing his request for access to his two sons. The High Court referred in particular to certain evidence suggesting that he had abused one of his sons, but concluded that it was not necessary to go further into the question.

The European Court found that, although the interference was in accordance to law and pursued a legitimate aim (the protection of the rights of others), the relevant passage from the High Court's judgment had not been sufficiently justified in the circumstances and had been disproportionate to the aims pursued. In the Court's opinion, the domestic court should either have dealt with the issue of sexual abuse fully, by examining the evidence and coming to a reasoned conclusion, or left it apart. The inclusion of the passage in such an authoritative judicial decision had had a major impact on the honour and reputation of the applicant and had seriously prejudiced his private and family life (violation of Article 8).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

7 000 euros

9 200 euros

16 200 euros

Paid on 13/02/2008

b) Individual measures

The European Court acknowledged that the High Court's decision on visiting rights had not been influenced by the inclusion of the contentious passage on the suspicions of sexual abuse (§33 of the judgment). It awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the prejudice to the applicant's honour and reputation and to his private and family life. In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary in this case.

      II. General measures

Given the direct effect of the European Convention in Norway, publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment to all competent courts should be sufficient to guarantee that the requirements of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court will be taken into account in the future, to prevent similar violations. In this context, it should be noted that the National Court Administration sent the judgment of the European Court out to all courts. Judges have been provided with a copy of the judgment and a note containing a summary in Norwegian of the decision of the European Court. Moreover, new judges are subject to 20 days' (mandatory) training. Half a day is dedicated to the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the Court, including the present judgment.

A summary of the judgment in Norwegian, with a link to the original judgment, was published on the Internet site Lovdata (<http://www.lovdata.no/avg/emdn/emdn-2003-012148-2-norge.html>). The Lovdata web site is widely used by all who practice law in Norway, civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike. The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (an independent national human rights institution) prepares summaries of the Court's judgments for the database.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no other individual measure appears necessary in this case, that the general measures taken will prevent other, similar violations, and that Norway has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1213

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Adalı against Turkey

(Application No. 38187/97, judgment of 31 March 2005, final on 12 October 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 in this case, 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 lack of an effective investigation into the death of the applicant's husband (violations of articles 2 and 13) and a refusal by the authorities to grant the applicant permission to cross from northern Cyprus into southern Cyprus, to attend a bi-communal meeting (violation of article 11) (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, within the time-limit set, 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(2010)12

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Adalı against Turkey

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns the lack of an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband, who was shot in front of his house situated in the northern part of Cyprus on 06/07/96 by unknown persons (violation of Article 2 and 13).

The European Court found the following shortcomings in the investigation:

- the negligence of the investigating authorities in that they failed to take fingerprints on the terrace and inside the applicant’s home, the absence of real co-ordination among themselves and the failure to preserve the scene of the crime;

- the insufficient ballistic examination, in particular the failure to compare the cartridges found with those classified in the police archives in Turkey;

- the failure of the investigating authorities to take statements from some key witnesses (although additional witness statements were taken in 2002, after the application in this case had been communicated to the government);

- the failure of the authorities to inquire sufficiently into the motives behind the killing of the applicant’s husband, and

- the lack of public scrutiny of the investigation as a result of no information being provided to the deceased’s family, in particular the lack of transmission of the autopsy and ballistics reports.

The case also concerns an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association on account of a refusal of permission to cross from the northern part to the southern part of Cyprus to attend a bi-communal meeting on 20/06/1997 (violation of Article 11).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

20,000 euros

67,763.26 euros

87,763.26 euros

Paid on 30/12/2005

b) Individual measures

An additional inquiry into the death of Mr Adalı was carried out, following a letter of 24/03/2006 by the Prosecutor General to the police authorities ordering them to initiate a further investigation, taking into account the shortcomings identified by the European Court in its judgment. All elements pointed out by the European Court as deficient in the initial investigation which led to the violation, were considered and re-examined in the new inquiry. The collecting of new fingerprints proved to be objectively impossible, given the long period of time which elapsed since the events, the environmental changes affecting the location and the fact that external persons had subsequently been at the scene of the crime. During the initial investigation, the scope of the ballistic tests was broadened to cover the archives of the police in Turkey, but to no avail. The corresponding report could not be found subsequently. The victim’s mobile telephone was sought but not found. As regards the investigation of the motives behind the killing of the applicant's husband, the competent authorities have examined all allegations advanced without obtaining conclusive results. The documents and results of all investigations carried out in connection with this case have been submitted to the Prosecutor General. The applicant never requested either the autopsy or the ballistic reports. It should be noted that two of the key witnesses not questioned at the time of the facts - Mr Ceylan and Mr Demirci - have been heard during the additional investigation opened in 2002 (under No CTKC/440/1996). A third important witness - Mr Mendi - was heard by the European Court (§§163-174 of the judgment).

Having carried out the additional investigative acts considered necessary by the European Court, the authorities concluded that it had not been possible to obtain new documents, information or testimonies on the basis of which criminal charges could be brought against any person. On the other hand, the Turkish authorities have underlined that as no period of limitation applies to proceedings in this case, the emergence any new element may give rise at any moment to an appropriate follow-up.

On 12/03/2009 the Turkish authorities wrote to the applicant informing her of the new inquiry carried out following the European Court's judgment. The letter states that given the amount of time which has elapsed, the authorities were unable to obtain any further evidence that would permit criminal charges to be brought. The applicant did not react to this letter.

      II. General measures

      1) Violations of Article 2 and 13:

The Turkish authorities have stressed that the shortcomings in the investigation found by the Court emanated from practice and not from legislation in place. The authorities provided in support of this statement a copy of the “Coroners Law” and of the ”Law on Criminal Procedures” of the “TRNC”. They indicated in particular that investigations of deaths are conducted ex officio by investigating magistrates and under their exclusive control. As regards the involvement of victims’ families into the investigations carried out, Article 14 of the “Coroners Law” states that “every interested party may appear either by advocate or in person and examine, cross-examine or re-examine, as the case may be, any witness". In addition, Article 29 of the “Act on the Law Office” was amended on 13/03/2006 to the effect that the Attorney General, if he finds it necessary, may supervise or direct investigations carried out by the General Directorate of the Police Forces and may give orders in this respect. Consequently, the role of the Attorney General in police investigations has been enhanced. The judgment of the European Court has been translated into Turkish, posted on the “TRNC” courts’ website (http://www.mahkemeler.net/cgi-bin/aihm.aspx) and disseminated to all jurisdictions via the channels of the Prosecutor General's Office on 13/05/2008. In addition, an article entitled The Ilkay Adalı Case and Aspects of the Right to Life has been published in the Lefkoşa Bar Journal, No. 13 (April 2005), in order to raise awareness of the requirements of the Convention as regards effective investigations of the authorities entrusted with applying the law.

      2) Violation of Article 11:

The necessary measures have been taken in the framework of the case of Djavit An against Turkey (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)59). The “Council of Ministers of the TRNC” adopted several decisions following the judgment of the European Court in that case, in order to provide a legal basis regulating the crossing from the northern part to the southern part.

Under the terms of decision No. E-762-2003 the crossing from the north to the south is carried out after presentation of an identity card or a passport and the computerised recording of the passage of persons and vehicles. Each person may carry personal effects. Moreover, the provisions requiring passage on a day-trip basis with the return before midnight were repealed by a decision of the “Council of Ministers of the TRNC” No. T-820-2004.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have remedied in so far as they could the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1314

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Mareš against the Czech Republic

(Application No. 1414/03, judgment of 26 October 2006, final on 26 January 2007)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the infringement of the right to a fair, adversarial trial before the Constitutional Court (violation of Article 6 paragraph 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, within the time-limit set, 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(2010)13

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Mareš against the Czech Republic

      Introductory case summary

This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair and adversarial trial before the Constitutional Court in July 2002. In the course of the examination of his complaint concerning the violation of his constitutional rights in criminal proceedings brought against him, the applicant did not receive a copy of the observations of the other parties to the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

   

313 EUR

313 EUR

Paid on 18/04/2007

b) Individual measures

In the criminal proceedings the applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Pursuant to this sentence he was dismissed from the police for 10 years. On 13/09/2002 he received a presidential pardon for the prison sentence. Czech domestic law provides the possibility to request reopening of proceedings before the Constitutional Court following a judgment of the European Court. The applicant has not requested the reopening of the proceedings.

      II. General measures

On 25/10/2005 the plenum of the Constitutional Court adopted a recommendation according to which reporting judges must communicate the observations of the opposing parties to the applicants for possible comments when they contain, or might contain new allegations, lines of argument or facts (see case of Milatová, final resolution ResDH(2006)71, adopted on 20/12/2006).

The judgment of the European Court was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.cz) and sent to domestic courts.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1415

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Zich and others against the Czech Republic

(Application No. 48548/99, judgments of 18 July 2006, final on 18 October 2006, and of 21 December 2006)

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 it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the deprivation, pursuant to the law on restitution, of the property acquired by the applicants under the communist regime (violation of 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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants 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(2010)14

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the case of

Zich and others against the Czech Republic

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns the restoration of a building, acquired in good faith by the applicants, to its previous owners. The eight applicants are members of the housing co-operative which formerly owned a block of flats in Prague. In the 1960s ownership of the building was transferred to the state by its original owners because they were in difficult circumstances. In 1981 the building was acquired by the predecessor of the
co-operative through an agreement with the state. The co-operative carried out a large-scale reconstruction and modernisation project.

In 1991 the successors in title to the original owners brought an action to recover ownership of the building from the co-operative. On 23/03/1994 the Prague 3 District Court ordered the co-operative to reach an agreement for the restoration of the building to the plaintiffs; it held that it had been established that the plaintiffs had been in financial difficulties at the time of the transfer, that they were accordingly entitled to apply for restitution under the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act and that the co-operative was required to return the property. After the judgment was upheld on appeal, the applicants brought the case-unsuccessfully – before the Supreme and the Constitutional Courts. Then the Ministry of Finance reached an agreement with the co-operative under the terms of which, in August 1999, the latter was reimbursed the price it had paid to purchase the property in 1981 (53 470 euro). In July 2002 the District Court dismissed a claim by the co-operative against the state for the difference in value between the purchase price and the sum paid, partly by its members and partly by the bank, for the reconstruction and modernisation of the building.

The European Court considered that the applicants had title to a possession and that the return of the property had entailed an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of it. That interference, which had been based on the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act, had been in public interest. The European Court noted nonetheless that the co-operative had acquired the property in good faith, without knowing that it had been given to the state by its former owners under pressure, and for the price fixed in accordance with the law. It further observed that under the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act the co-operative had been entitled to reimbursement of the price it had paid to purchase the property in 1981. In those conditions, the European Court considered that the applicants had had to bear an “individual and excessive burden” and that the Czech authorities, in applying the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act, had not taken into consideration the conditions in which the return of the property had been carried out, particularly the terms of the compensation intended to lighten the burden the applicants had to bear (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

Judgment of 18/07/2006

-

6 000 euros

1 000 euros

7 000 euros

Paid on 28/12/2006

Judgment of 21/12/2006

9 595 828 Czech korunas

-

-

9 595 828 Czech korunas

Paid on 19/12/2006 and 27/12/2006

b) Individual measures

The pecuniary damage sustained was the subject of the friendly settlement concluded before the European Court. Moreover, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered. Consequently, no other individual measure seems required in this case.

      II. General measures

The case presents similarities to those of Pincová and Pinc (No. 36548/97) and Zvolský and Zvolská (No. 46129/99) (closed by Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)30 adopted on 20/04/2007).

The judgment of the European Court was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.cz). Moreover, the judgment on the merits was the subject of the government resolution No. 1258 of 01/11/2006 by which the friendly settlement on the just satisfaction was approved; in that way, it was brought to ministries’ and courts’ attention.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1516

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Vokoun against the Czech Republic

(Application No. 20728/05, judgment of 3 July 2008, final on 3 October 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the infringement of the right to a fair, adversarial trial before the Constitutional Court (violation of Article 6§1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the Czech Republic’s 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;

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(2010)15

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Vokoun against the Czech Republic

      Introductory case summary

This case concerns a breach of the right to a fair and adversarial trial before the Constitutional Court in December 2004, in that the applicant did not receive a copy of the observations of the Supreme Court's judge concerning his constitutional appeal (violation of Article 6§1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

In the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the applicant complained solely of the lack of reasoning of the Supreme Court's decision on his appeal on points of law (lodged following civil proceedings in which he had unsuccessfully claimed recognition of his title to a property). The same complaint raised under Article 6§1 of the Convention, as well as a complaint lodged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were declared inadmissible by the European Court in its decision on partial admissibility.

The applicant requested compensation for pecuniary damage allegedly corresponding to the value of the property at issue. The European Court rejected this claim finding no causal link between the violation found and the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage. It also noted that it could not further speculate on what would have been the issue of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court should the latter have observed the requirements of Article 6, and concluded that the circumstances of the case did not allow it to regard the applicant as having suffered a loss of real opportunity. Furthermore, the European Court held that the finding of a violation was sufficient to redress any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

b) Individual measures

The Czech authorities underlined that this case had been examined on the merits at least at first and second instances, that the same alleged violation of the Convention which the applicant had raised before the Constitutional Court had been declared manifestly ill-founded by the European Court. The applicant had made no claim in respect of individual measures. Consequently, no other individual measure seems necessary.

      II. General measures

On 25/10/2005 the plenum of the Constitutional Court adopted a recommendation according to which reporting judges must communicate the observations of the opposing parties to the applicants for possible comments when they contain, or might contain new allegations, lines of argument or facts (see case of Milatová, final resolution ResDH(2006)71, adopted on 20/12/2006).

The European Court's judgment was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.cz) and it was also discussed at the meeting of the plenary of the Constitutional Court.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1617

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

S.H. against Finland

(Application No. 28301/03, judgment of 29 July 2008, final on 29 October 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the unfairness of certain insurance proceedings in that it had not been possible for the applicant to comment on two medical opinions included in her case file (violation of article 6, paragraph 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, within the time-limit set, 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(2010)16

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

S.H. against Finland

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns the unfairness of certain insurance proceedings relating to the applicant’s accident pension: the applicant was denied the opportunity to comment on two medical opinions included in her case file in 2002. The European Court concluded that the applicant had therefore not been able to participate properly in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

2 500 euros

3 000 euros

5 500 euros

Paid on 29/01/2009

b) Individual measures

The applicant may request the reopening of the proceedings in question. Consequently, no other individual measure is required in this case.

      II. General measures

This case presents similarities to the K.P. case (No. 31764/96, judgment of 31/05/2001, closed by Resolution ResDH(2006)59, adopted on 02/11/2006), in which the facts occurred in 1994-1995. The Finnish authorities consider that the violation found in this case, having taken place after the adoption and publication of the K.P. judgment, seems to remain isolated. Nevertheless, an excerpt of the judgment in Finnish was published in the legal database Finlex (www.finlex.fi <http://www.finlex.fi>) and the judgment was sent out to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliament/Constitutional Law Committee, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministries of Justice and of Social Affairs and Health, the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health, to the Employment Accidents Appeal Board and to the Insurance Court.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1718

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Sahin and Sommerfeld against Germany

(Applications Nos. 30943/96 and 31871/96, judgments of 8 July 2003, Grand Chamber)

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 discriminatory treatment of the applicants due to the dismissal of their requests for access to their children born out of wedlock and, in the Sommerfeld case, also the fact that the applicant was deprived of a further appeal in the access proceedings on account of his status as the father of a child born out of wedlock (violations of Article 14, taken together with Article 8) (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 judgments (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 new, 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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)17

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Sahin and Sommerfeld against Germany

      Introductory case summary

Both cases concern domestic courts' dismissal, in 1991-1994, of the applicants’ requests for access to their children born out of wedlock. The European Court found that the applicants had suffered discriminatory treatment in that, at the time of the facts, Sections 1634§1 and 1711§2 of the Civil Code provided unjustifiably different criteria making it more difficult for fathers of children born out of wedlock to obtain access to their children than for divorced fathers of children born in wedlock (violations of Article 14, taken together with Article 8).

In the Sommerfeld case, the European Court found in addition that the applicant had suffered discriminatory treatment in that he had been unable to lodge a further appeal under Section 63a of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act which was, at the material time, available only to divorced fathers of children born in wedlock (violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 8).

      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

Sahin (30943/96)

-

20 000 EUR

4 500 EUR

24 500 EUR

 

Paid on 01/09/2003

Sommerfeld (31871/96)

-

20 000 EUR

2 500 EUR

22 500 EUR

 

Paid on 20/08/2003

b) Individual measures

In the Sahin case, the German authorities stated in December 2003 that the applicant could at any time submit a new request to the competent authorities for access to his child. The latter is now of age.

In the Sommerfeld case, the applicant’s child turned 18 in 1999. Consequently, no further individual measure is necessary.

      II. General measures

As regards the violations caused by the legislation on family matters, general measures were adopted following the Elsholz case (closed by Final Resolution ResDH(2001)155 adopted on 17/12/2001). Accordingly, the statutory provisions on custody and access, which are to be found in the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), were amended on several occasions and many were repealed by the new Law on Family Matters (Reform zum Kindschaftsrecht) of 16/12/1997, which entered into force on 1/07/1998. In particular, pursuant to Article 1626a§1 as amended, the parents of a minor child born out of wedlock jointly exercise custody if they make a declaration to that effect or if they marry. According to Article 1684 as amended, a child is entitled to have access to both parents: each parent is obliged to have contact with, and entitled to have access to, the child. Family courts can determine the scope of the right of access and prescribe more specific rules for its exercise; they can also restrict or suspend that right if such a measure is necessary for the child’s welfare.  

Section 63a of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act, which caused the second violation in the Sommerfeld case, was repealed by the Law on Family Matters of 1997 (see §36 of the judgment). Section 63 now provides the right to lodge a further appeal challenging the first appeal decision. The authorities also stated that there were new provisions regarding the procedural rights of parents of children born out of wedlock.

Finally, both judgments were published in Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (EuGRZ, 2004, pp. 707-714).

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Germany has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1819

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Citarella, Votto, Votto Renato, La Fazia, Di Crosta, Massimo Maria Assunta, Cifra, D’Apolito, Puzella and Cosentino, Moroni, Valentini, Fabiano & Furno against Italy

(see details in Appendix)

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 several violations of applicants' rights throughout proceedings to establish their bankruptcy and/or after the closure of the bankruptcy proceedings, such as the suspension of their electoral rights, the setting of limits to their personal capacity and absence of a remedy to complain of those limits (violations of Articles 3 of Protocol No. 1, 8 and 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 the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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;

      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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)18

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Citarella, Votto, Votto Renato, La Fazia, Di Crosta, Massimo Maria Assunta, Cifra, D’Apolito, Puzella and Cosentino, Moroni, Valentini, Fabiano & Furno against Italy

      Introductory case summary

These cases concern restrictions of various rights of the applicants, ordered in the framework of the bankruptcy proceedings against them and in particular:

- limits on their personal capacity: as a result of being automatically registered as bankrupt, the applicants are barred from a number of professional activities (managing agent of a property, stockbroker, auditor, arbitrator, administrator or liquidator of commercial companies) as well as from the rolls of certain professions (advocate, notary, commercial adviser). They may not obtain rehabilitation and thus put an end to these restrictions until five years after the closure of the bankruptcy proceedings. The European Court considered that this interference, based on Article 50 of the Bankruptcy Act, was not necessary in a democratic society (violations of Article 8). Furthermore, concerning this violation, the European Court held that the applicants disposed of no effective remedy (violation of Article 13);

- suspension of the electoral rights of the applicants for five years counting from the declaration of bankruptcy: the European Court found that this measure, which is applicable to bankrupts even in the absence of deceit or fraud on the sole basis of their insolvency, resulted in the marginalisation of the applicants and had the appearance of a moral sanction. This measure, provided by presidential decree No. 223 of 20/03/1967 and modified by Law No. 15 of 16/01/1992, does not in the Court's view pursue any legitimate aim (violations of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, in the case La Fazia);

      I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Date of judgment

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Paid on

Citarella

28466/03

judgment of 15 January 2008

-

-

1.150,00 euros

1.150,00 euros

08/07/2008

Votto

11/04

judgment of 16 October 2007

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

04/04/2008

Votto Renato

4733/04

judgment of 23 October 2007

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

14/05/2008

La Fazia

4910/04

judgment of 16 October 2007

-

1.500,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

3.500,00 euros

04/04/2008

Di Crosta

38823/04

judgment of 13 November 2007

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

30/04/2008

Massimo Maria Assunta

11000/05

judgment of 10 March 2009

-

-

1.150,00 euros

1.150,00 euros

04/08/2009

Cifra

26735/05

judgment of 10 March 2009

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

22/09/2009

D’Apolito

33226/05

judgment of 10 March 2009

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

22/09/2009

Puzella and Cosentino

38264/05

judgment of 10 March 2009

-

-

1.150,00 euros

1.150,00 euros

04/08/2009

Moroni

40261/05

judgment of 10 March 2009

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

04/08/2009

Valentini

40664/05

judgment of 10 March 2009

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

04/08/2009

Fabiano

40807/05

judgment of 10 March 2009

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

04/08/2009

Furno

40824/05

judgment of 10 March 2009

-

-

2.000,00 euros

2.000,00 euros

04/08/2009

b) Individual measures

No individual measure is necessary as the restrictions on the applicants were lifted by the reform of bankruptcy law of 2006.

      II. General measures

Legislative Decree No. 5/2006, adopted in January 2006 has resolved the questions raised in the Court's judgments in these cases. Article 152 of this decree has repealed the provisions concerning the suspension of electoral rights and Article 47 has removed the restriction on personal capacity (for further details see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)45, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the cases of Albanese, Campagnano and Vitiello against Italy, on 25 June 2008).

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measures are necessary in these cases, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)1920

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Bogulak and 3 other cases against Poland

(See details in Appendix)

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 breaches of the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power following arrest (violations of Article 5§3), as well as, in the cases of Bogulak and M.B., the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings aiming at the control of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention on remand (violations of Article 5§4) (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 the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)19

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Bogulak and three other cases against Poland

      Introductory case summary

These cases concern the violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power following arrest, in that the applicants had been detained solely on the basis of prosecutor’s decisions, delivered between 1994 and 1996 (violations of Article 5§3).

The cases Bogulak and M.B. also concern the impossibility for the applicants to take part in or to be represented at the hearings concerning the lawfulness of their detention on remand during this period (violations of Article 5§4).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Bogulak

33866/96

-

1 000 EUR

-

1 000 EUR

 

Paid on 23/11/2006

M.B.,

34091/96

-

2 500 EUR

-

2 500 EUR

 

Paid on 28/10/2004 (delay of one day)

Jasiński,

30865/96

-

-

1 340 EUR

1 340 EUR

 

Paid on 05/05/2006

W.B.,

34090/96

-

-

1 231 EUR

1 231 EUR

 

Paid on 25/07/2006 (15 days’ delay)

b) Individual measures

At the time the European Court delivered its judgments, the applicants were no longer held on remand.

Moreover, in the cases of Jasiński and W.B., the European Court found that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

      II. General measures

The cases present similarities to that of Niedbała (Resolution ResDH(2002)124), which was closed following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure on 01/09/1998 : the law on remand in custody and proceedings regarding the examination of its lawfulness have been brought into accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Poland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2021

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Urbino Rodrigues & Roseiro Bento against Portugal

(Application No. 75088/01, judgment of 29 November 2005, final on 1 March 2006

Application No. 29288/02, judgment of 18 April 2006, final on 18 July 2006).

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 concerned disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression of the applicants, due to their conviction for defamation, following publication of a response to highly polemical remarks published by another journalist concerning an article by the applicant (case Urbino Rodrigues) and insults in the course of a debate in a municipal council (case Roseiro Bento) (violations of article 10) (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 the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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;

      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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)20

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Urbino Rodrigues & Roseiro Bento against Portugal

      Introductory case summary

These cases concern disproportionate interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression due to their conviction for defamation (violations of Article 10). In the Urbino Rodrigues case, the applicant was a journalist convicted in 2000 of criminal libel and sentenced a fine, following publication of his response to highly polemical remarks published by another journalist concerning an article of the applicant. In the Roseiro Bento case, the applicant, at that time mayor of Vagos, was sentenced in 2001 to pay damages claimed by a political opponent for insults in the course of a debate in the municipal council.

      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

Urbino Rodrigues 75088/01

1 900 EUR

-

-

1 900 EUR

 

Paid on 18/05/2006

Roseiro Bento 29288/02

1 000 EUR

-

7 500 EUR

8 500 EUR

 

Paid on 09/11/2006

b) Individual measures

The amount of fines and damages paid by the applicants as a result of their conviction have been included in the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court. Furthermore, the applicant's conviction in the Urbino Rodrigues case is no longer mentioned in his criminal record.

      II. General measures

These cases present similarities with the Lopes Gomes da Silva case (closed by final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)131, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Minsters’ Deputies).

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Portugal has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2122

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Cornelia Eufrosina Radu against Romania

(Application No. 65402/01, judgment of 12 July 2007, final on 12 October 2007)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the lack of access to a court in order to claim the restitution of a nationalised building (violation of Article 6, paragraph 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(2010)21

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Cornelia Eufrosina Radu against Romania

      Introductory case summary

This case concerns a violation of the applicant's right of access to a court in that the Bucharest Court of Appeal concluded in 1999 that it was not competent to deal with her claim for restitution of property that belonged to her but which had been nationalised in 1950 (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

7,000 EUR

500 EUR

7,500 EUR

Paid on 17/01/2008

b) Individual measures

Article 322, paragraph 2, of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility of reopening civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court has found a violation. In addition, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In these circumstances no individual measure is required.

      II. General measures

This case presents similarities to that of Canciovici and others against Romania (Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)79), in which the Romanian authorities indicated that changes made to the legislation and case-law recognised the right of access to a court for former owners of nationalised property.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2223

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The Estate of Nitschke against Sweden

(Application No. 6301/05, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the excessive length of tax administrative proceedings (violation of Article 6, paragraph 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, within the time-limit set, 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(2010)22

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

The Estate of Nitschke against Sweden

      Introductory case summary

This case concerns the excessive length of proceedings, caused by the domestic tax and judicial authorities’ failure to meet the “reasonable time” requirement (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

The proceedings at issue started on 3/11/1994 when an audit report was sent to the applicant, and ended on 17/08/2004 when the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant’s leave to appeal.

The European Court, accepting that the case represented some complexity and that the delay in proceedings was also due to the applicant’s requests to the domestic courts for extension of time-limits, concluded, however, that there had been periods of inactivity before national tax and judicial authorities which did not promote the timely completion of the case.

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

 

3 000 EUR

4 000 EUR

7 000 EUR

Paid on 28/02/2008

b) Individual measures

No individual measures appear necessary since the domestic proceedings in question ended in 2004 and the damage was covered by just satisfaction awarded by the European Court.

      II. General measures

The case represents similarities to that of Janosevic (closed by Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)59 adopted on 20/04/2007), following which the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) issued guidelines concerning time-limits for the reconsideration of taxation decisions. The Swedish government also set operational objectives for county administrative courts and administrative courts of appeal regarding the turnaround time of cases and it asked the National Courts Administration (Domstolverket) to evaluate the situation concerning the handling of tax cases. The Swedish authorities did not consider it necessary to introduce new legislation with respect to the slow processing of cases, since existing legislation already provided that tax authorities should deal promptly with cases and imposed a requirement of diligent processing on administrative courts.

A summary in Swedish of the present judgment has been published on the website of the Swedish National Court’s Administration (www.domstol.se). The judgment in English and a summary in Swedish have been also published on the Government’s website on human rights (www.manskligarattigheter.se). Finally, a report accompanied with a copy of the judgment has been sent to the relevant domestic courts and authorities.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Sweden has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2324

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

in 5 cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

against Turkey

(See Appendix for details of the cases)

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 concerns late payment of compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest (violations of 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 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 judgments (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;

      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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)23

Information on the measures taken to comply with 5 judgments against Turkey

      Introductory case summary

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the administration’s delay in paying additional compensation granted by domestic courts for expropriation of their property, and on account of the considerable difference between the rate of default interest applicable at the material time and the average inflation rate in Turkey (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Yakışır 51965/99

EUR 1000

--------------

EUR 500

EUR 1500

Paid on 26/03/2009

Tınarlıoğlu 3820/03

EUR 10300

--------

-------------

EUR 10300

Paid on 30/09/2009

Gür and Yıldız 473/03

No just satisfaction awarded.

Işık Sait 19255/02

EUR 3000

-----------

EUR 780

EUR 3780

Paid on 10/09/2009

Argunhan 27045/02

EUR 670

--------

-------------

EUR 670

Paid on 3/03/2009

b) Individual measures

The just satisfaction awarded in respect of pecuniary damages constitutes sufficient redress for the applicants.

      II.  General measures

Measures have already been taken to prevent similar violations (See Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 closing the Aka and Akkus cases) including in particular the entry into force on 1 January 2000 of Law No. 4489 which aligned the legal rate of default interest with the annual discount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debt (this rate is kept under constant review in the light of the recorded rate of inflation in the country).

      III.  Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2425

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

in 8 cases concerning discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender regarding social security benefits against United Kingdom

(see details in appendix)

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 discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender regarding social security benefits (violations of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix) (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;

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;

      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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)24

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 8 cases concerning discrimination between widows and widowers on grounds of gender regarding social security benefits against United Kingdom

      Introductory case summary

The cases concern discrimination on grounds of gender, on account of the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to pay the applicants, widowers, social security benefits available to women in a similar position. The cases of Murray Robert, Twomey, Nelson, Turner and Mitchard concern the applicants’ entitlement to widowed mother’s allowance, under section 37 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992. The cases of Booth, Twizell and Shireby concern the applicants’ entitlement to widow’s payment, under section 36 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992.

The European Court acknowledged that it had previously examined cases raising issues similar to those in the present cases and had found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Willis against the United Kingdom, application No. 36042/97, judgment of 11 June 2002, final on 11 September 2005). On examining the present cases the Court found no facts or arguments from the government which would lead to a different conclusion. Accordingly, the Court held that the difference in treatment between men and women as regards entitlement to widowed mother’s allowance and widow’s payment was not based on any “objective and reasonable justification”, and constituted a violation Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

      I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application no.

Date of judgment

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Nelson,

no. 74961/01

01/04/2008, final on 01/07/2008

26,955 EUR

-

2,500 EUR

29,455 EUR

Paid on 03/09/2008

Twizell,

no. 25379/02

20/05/2008, final on 20/08/2008

1,960 EUR

-

-

1,960 EUR

Paid on 03/07/2008

Shireby,

no 28071/02

09/12/2008, final on 09/03/2009

-

-

-

No just satisfaction awarded

Booth,

no. 27961/02

03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

-

-

-

No just satisfaction awarded

Mitchard,

no. 42711/02

03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

-

-

-

No just satisfaction awarded

Murray Robert,

no. 28045/02

03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

-

-

-

No just satisfaction awarded

Turner,

no. 42709/02

03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

-

-

-

No just satisfaction awarded

Twomey,

no. 28095/02

03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

-

-

-

No just satisfaction awarded

Notwithstanding the Court’s requests, in the cases of Murray Robert, Twomey, Turner, Mitchard, Booth and Shireby the applicants’ representatives submitted no claim under Article 41 of the Convention.

b) Individual measures

Considering that the violations found by the Court have ceased, consequent to amendments to the domestic law prior to the judgments of the Court (see General measures below), no individual measures are necessary.

      II. General measures

The issues raised in the present cases are similar to those raised in the Cornwell case (application no. 36578/97, friendly settlement, judgment of 25 April 2000, final on 25 July 2000). The Committee of Ministers’ examination of that case was closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)95), in which it satisfied itself that the applicant had been paid the sums provided in the friendly settlement and that legislative amendments had been introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, primarily sections 54 and 55 thereof, granting equal treatment to widows and widowers in respect of social security benefits as from 9 April 2001 (see also Resolution ResDH(2003)130 in the Willis case and Resolution ResDH(2002)96 in the Leary case). In these circumstances, no further general measure was considered necessary.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2526

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

R.K. and A.K. against the United Kingdom

(Application No. 38000/05, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 30/12/2008)

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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the lack of an effective remedy (violation of article 13) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken 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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants 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(2010)25

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

R.K. and A.K. against the United Kingdom

      Introductory case summary

This case concerns the lack of an effective domestic remedy whereby the applicants might establish a local authority's responsibility for damage suffered and obtain compensation (violation of Article 13).

The applicants claimed that the local authority had violated their rights under Article 8 by taking their daughter into short-term, state care. As the incident in question had occurred before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force (on 02/10/2000) the applicants could not bring a claim against the local authority for the alleged violation.

The European Court found no violation of Article 8 but found a violation of Article 13, stating that the applicants “should have had available to them a means of claiming that the local authority's handling of the procedures was responsible for any damage … and obtaining compensation for that damage” (§ 45)

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

EUR 10,000

EUR 18,000

EUR 28,000

Paid on 25/03/2009

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants' daughter was returned to them before the national proceedings began.

      II. General measures

This case presents similarities to that of Bubbins against the United Kingdom which has been closed by the Committee of Ministers (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)101). Following the entry into force on 02/10/2000 of the Human Rights Act 1998, a person in the situation of the applicants could bring a claim against a local authority under section 7 of that Act (that is to say, section 7(1) taken together with sections 7(7) and 6 (1)) in respect of an alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Such proceedings would provide a forum in which a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damages in respect of any civil liability of the local authority could be assessed.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Section 1.3

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2627

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Van Houten against Netherlands

(Application No. 25149/03, judgment of 29 September 2005, final on 29 December 2005, striking out)

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 applicant’s admissible complaint in this case concerned the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning his request for a disability pension (complaint under Article 6, paragraph 1).

Recalling that by a letter of 7 July 2005, the government of the respondent state informed the Court of its unilateral declaration, by which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings at issue and offered the applicant 5 000 euros as compensation for non-pecuniary damages and 1 000 euros for costs and expenses, and consequently argued that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the case within the meaning of Article 37 paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention;

Whereas in its judgment the Court held that the requirements for the application of Article 37 paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention were met in the present case, and that no other particular consideration related to respect for the human rights guaranteed in the Convention, justified pursuit of the application under Article 37, paragraph 1 in fine;

- decided, unanimously, to strike the case out of the list;

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 judgment, having regard to it’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;

Having satisfied itself that, on 18 October 2008, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment,

Having examined the information supplied by the government of the Netherlands,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in this case and

      DECIDES to close its examination.

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2728

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

in the case of Principe and others against Italy

(Application No. 44330/98, judgment of 19 December 2000, friendly settlement)

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 admissible complaints in this case concerned the excessive length of certain proceedings related to civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts;

Whereas in this case the Court, having taken formal note of 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 this 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 this friendly settlement it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicants the sum of 168.000.000 ITL for non pecuniary damages, as well as 3.000.000 ITL for costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment;

Recalling that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible is effected by means of a judgment which the President forwards 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 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 on 7 November 2001 the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement, in conditions accepted by the applicants;

Recalling that, as regard the applicants’ complaint declared admissible in this case, the Committee of Ministers is at present supervising the execution of several judgments of the Court and decisions of the Committee of Ministers, under previous Article 32 of the Convention, finding a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of proceedings before the Italian civil courts;

Whereas, in this connection, the Italian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that they were drafting and adopting new general measures in order to put to an end the serious problem of excessive length of proceedings, so as to prevent new violations similar to those already found in the above-mentioned case (see Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)437, DH(2000)135, CM/ResDH(2007)2 and CM/ResDH(2009)42),

Having examined the information supplied by the government of Italy,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in this case and DECIDES to close its examination.

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2829

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Cruz da Silva Coelho case against Portugal

(Application No. 9388/02, judgment of 13 December 2005, friendly settlement)

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 in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the applicant’s admissible complaints in this case concerned the alleged failure of the respondent state to act to prevent illegal sand extraction from a beach on the banks of the river Tagus which led to the drowning of her son (complaint under Article 2), as well as the alleged impossibility to obtain a decision on a case-law conflict on this issue (complaint under Articles 6 and 14).

Whereas in this case the Court, having taken formal note of 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 this case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the cases before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under this friendly settlement it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicant the sum of 75 000 EUR for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as 2 000 EUR for costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment;

Recalling that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible is effected by means of a judgment which the Court forwards 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 invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order 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 on 18 January 2006, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the sums provided in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in these cases to comply with the Court’s judgment;

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in this case and DECIDES to close its examination.

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2930

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Rosival and others against the Slovak Republic

(Application No. 17684/02, judgment of 23 September 2008, friendly settlement)

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 applicants’ complaints declared admissible in this case concerned the unfairness of proceedings for the restitution of real property confiscated by the state after the Second World War, deriving from the retroactive application of legislation limiting their claim (complaints under Article 6, paragraph 1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1);

Whereas in this case the Court, having taken formal note of 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 this case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the cases before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under these friendly settlements it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would either secure restitution to the applications of the real property at issue within six months as from the notification of the judgment, or, if the applicants had not acquired the ownership of the real property within the time-limit, pay the applicants jointly such sums as correspond to the official price of the property at issue based on an expert opinion within seven months as from the notification of the judgment and pay the applicants jointly a sum of 35,000 euros with respect to any other pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses incurred, within three months as from notification of the judgment;

Recalling that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible is effected by means of a judgment which the Court forwards 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 invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that on 21 October 2008 and 9 April 2009, within the time-limits agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in this case to comply with the Court’s judgment;

Having examined the information supplied by the government of Slovakia,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in these cases and DECIDES to close their examination.

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3031

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB against Sweden

(Application No. 44298/02, judgment of 30 June 2009, friendly settlement)

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 admissible applicants’ complaint in this case concerned the length of taxation proceedings (violation contained in complaint regarding Article 6, paragraph 1);

Whereas in this case the Court, having taken formal note of 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 this 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 this friendly settlement it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicants 10 000 Euros, within three months as from the notification of the judgment;

Recalling that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible is effected by means of a judgment which the Court forwards 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 invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order 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 on 20/07/2009, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in this case to comply with the Court’s judgment;

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in this case and DECIDES to close its examination.

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3132

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

in the case of Hunt and Miller against the United Kingdom

(Application No. 10578/05, judgment of 23 June 2009 - friendly settlement)

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 applicants’ admissible complaints in this case concerned alleged violations of the right to respect for private life due to investigations conducted into their sexual orientation and their constructive dismissal from the armed forces, in which both applicants had been serving, and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect (complaints under Articles 8 and 13);

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

Whereas under these friendly settlements it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicants 58 000 euros to cover pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as well as costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment;

Recalling that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible is effected by means of a judgment which the Court forwards 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 settlements or solution of the matter;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order 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 on 29 June 2009, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlements, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlements and that no other measure was required in these cases to comply with the Court’s judgment;

Having examined the information supplied by the government of the United Kingdom,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in these cases and DECIDES to close their examination.

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3233

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Wood against United Kingdom

(Application No. 47441/99, judgment of 15 March 2005, friendly settlement)

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 admissible applicant’s complaints in this case concerned his detention in 1997 by order of the magistrates’ court following proceedings finding that he had culpably neglected to pay a community charge, and the lack of legal aid (representation) in this respect (complaints under Article 5, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c));

Whereas in this case the Court, having taken formal note of 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 this 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 this friendly settlement it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicant the global sum of 5,508.00 GBP within three months as from the notification of the judgment;

Recalling that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible is effected by means of a judgment which the Court forwards 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 invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order 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 on 10 June 2005, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in this case to comply with the Court’s judgment;

Having examined the information supplied by the government of the United Kingdom,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in this case and DECIDES to close its examination.

Section 4.3

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3334

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

in the case of Xenides-Arestis against Turkey

(Application No. 46347/99, judgment of 7 December 2006, final on 23 May 2007)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”);

Deeply deploring the fact that, to date, Turkey has still not complied with its obligations to pay to the applicant the sums awarded in respect of just satisfaction in the Court's judgment of 7 December 2006;

Recalling its Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)99 of 4 December 2008, in which, inter alia, the Committee of Ministers strongly insisted that Turkey pay the sums awarded in the Court’s judgment of 7 December 2006, as well as the default interest due;

Recalling that, subsequently, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers wrote to his Turkish counterpart underlining once again Turkey's obligation to pay these sums;

Declares that Turkey’s continuing refusal to comply with the judgment of the Court is in flagrant conflict with its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe;

In view of this situation which gives serious cause for concern, strongly urges Turkey to review its position and to pay without any further delay the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant by the Court, as well as the default interest due.

Section 4.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3435

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

in 25 cases against Portugal

relating to the excessive length of judicial proceedings

(see Appendix II)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter “the Convention”),

Having regard to the number of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) finding Portugal in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of judicial proceedings (see Appendix III to this Resolution);

Reiterating that excessive delays in the administration of justice constitute a serious danger for the respect of the rule of law;

Recalling that the Committee, in its Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)108, welcomed the numerous reforms adopted by the Portuguese authorities to solve this structural problem; that it encouraged the authorities to continue their efforts in this field, inviting them to provide further information on the practical impact of the reforms;

Recalling that in that Interim Resolution, the Committee also referred to its Recommendation to member states Rec(2004)6 on the need to improve the efficiency of domestic remedies, and underlying the importance of this issue when the judgments point to structural problems likely to lead to an important number of new, similar violations of the Convention;

Having also examined the information provided by the Portuguese authorities on additional measures taken or envisaged since the adoption of the Interim Resolution (see Appendix I), comprising comparative statistical data concerning the length of proceedings in the civil, criminal and administrative fields (see Appendix III).

Assessment of the Committee of Ministers

    I. Individual measures

Noting with concern that in the Oliveira Modesto and others case (judgment of 08/06/00) the domestic proceedings, which are still pending, have lasted more than 22 years;

    URGES the Portuguese authorities to provide for acceleration as much as possible of these proceedings, in order to bring them to an end as soon as possible;

    II. General measures

1) Civil proceedings

Noting that, while the statistics show a decrease in the average length and the backlog before “higher” civil courts, the situation before the first-instance courts remains a subject of concern;

Noting also that the reform introduced by Law-decree No. 303/2007 has not yet produced the desired impact on the length of proceedings, insofar as it only applies to proceedings initiated after its entry into force (i.e. 1/01/2008);

    URGES the authorities to envisage the adoption of ad hoc measures to reduce the civil backlog by giving priority to the oldest cases and to cases requiring particular diligence;

    ENCOURAGES them to pursue actively their efforts to ensure reduction of the length of civil proceedings, especially before first-instance courts and to assure appropriate monitoring of the reform of 2007 so as to evaluate its effects;

    INVITES the authorities also to submit information and statistical data on the general trend before family courts, no information being currently available on this issue.

2) Criminal proceedings

Noting with satisfaction that the reform of criminal proceedings which entered in force on 15 September 2007, has contributed to an important decrease in the backlog, in particular before first-instance criminal courts and that, at least as far as procedures before “higher” courts are concerned, it also contributed to a decrease in their average length;

    ENCOURAGES the Portuguese authorities to continue their efforts in monitoring the reform, in view of a full consolidation of its positive effects on the average length of proceedings, including those before first-instance criminal courts.

      3) Administrative proceedings

Noting with satisfaction that following the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1997, the number of pending cases and registered cases before the Supreme Administrative Court reduced by 50% between 1994 and 2000 and that the statistics on fiscal and administrative proceedings show a decrease of the length of proceedings before “higher” administrative courts;

Noting with interest the wide-ranging reform of administrative proceedings which entered into force on 1 January 2004, aimed at providing effective judicial protection and improving access to justice by amending several procedural aspects;

Noting however that the statistics also show an important increase in the average length of proceedings before first-instance courts;

    STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the Portuguese authorities to pursue actively their efforts to reduce the length of administrative and fiscal proceedings, in particular before first-instance courts;

    INVITES them to continue appropriate monitoring of the implementation of the reform of 2004, so as to be able to evaluate its impact on length of proceedings, and to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of any development on this issue.

4) Enforcement proceedings

Noting with concern that, notwithstanding the reform brought in by Law-decree No. 38/2003, the statistics show an increase in both length of proceedings and backlog;

Noting the recent reform brought in by Law no.18/2008 and Law-Decree no. 226/2008, as well as by Ministerial Decrees Nos. 312, 313, 321-A and 321-B of 30 March 2009, aimed at simplifying and expediting enforcement proceedings, as well as avoiding bringing actions devoid of purpose before courts;

Bearing in mind that the reform has not yet been fully deployed in respect of enforcement proceedings, insofar as it only entered into force on 31 March 2009 and therefore an assessment cannot be carried out at this stage;

    ENCOURAGES the Portuguese authorities to continue their efforts to ensure that the recent reform of enforcement proceedings fully contributes to the acceleration of such proceedings;

    CALLS UPON the authorities to assess the effects of the reform as it proceeds, with a view to adopting, if appropriate, any further measures necessary to ensure its effectiveness, and to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the developments in this field.

5) Measures for improving the efficiency of the judiciary

Noting the measures adopted by the authorities to reduce the congestion of courts, in particular strengthening alternative dispute resolution measures;

Noting in addition with interest that during 2008 digital treatment of cases and management of files (Citius project) have been introduced;

    INVITES the Portuguese authorities to assess the effects of the measures adopted, to take any further necessary measures, if appropriate, to improve their effectiveness and to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of this assessment and on possible developments on this issue,

6) Measures regarding effective remedies

Noting with interest the adoption of Law No. 67/2007 of 31/12/2007 which explicitly regulates the application of extra-contractual responsibility of the state to the violation of the right to a judicial decision within a reasonable time (Article 12);

Noting, however, that there currently exist discrepancies in the jurisprudence as regards the application of this law to the issue of compensation for non-pecuniary damages and that in its judgment of 10/06/2008 in the Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro case, the European Court found that the action for extra-contractual civil responsibility of the state will not offer an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, as long as the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court and in particular its decision of 28 November 2007 – which is in line with the case law of the European Court concerning compensation of damages – is not consolidated in the Portuguese legal order through the harmonisation of the jurisprudential discrepancies which may be observed;

Noting also that in the judgment mentioned above the European Court recalls that Article 152 of the Procedural Code of Administrative Courts provides the public prosecutor with the power to ask the Supreme Court for harmonisation of jurisprudence and recommends the use of this instrument to put an end to this uncertainty in the case-law;

Noting also the publication and the broad dissemination of the Court’s judgment in the Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro case and considering that these measures are also appropriate since they themselves may encourage the harmonisation of the domestic case-law, favouring the recognition of the findings of the Court by the courts concerned;

    ENCOURAGES the authorities to pursue their efforts to introduce the remedy for harmonisation of the domestic courts’ case-law as soon as possible;

    INVITES them to provide information on the current practice of courts and its evolution following the Court’s judgment in the Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro case;

In view of the above, the Committee of Ministers

    DECIDES to resume consideration of the progress achieved at the latest:

    - At the end of 2010 as far as the issue of an effective remedy is concerned;

    - In mid-2011 as far as the issue of excessive length of judicial proceedings is concerned.

Appendix I to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)34

Information provided by the Government of Portugal

on measures adopted by the Portuguese authorities

on the excessive length of judicial proceedings

following the adoption of the Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)108, in October 2007

    I. Individual measures

Since the adoption of the Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)108 the domestic proceedings in two additional cases have been closed (Garcia da Silva and Sociedade Agricola do Peral). At present, proceedings are still pending in only one case (Oliveira Modesto and others).

    II. General measures

1) General remarks on civil and criminal proceedings before the first instance courts

2008 is the third consecutive year in which the number of pending cases before civil and criminal first instance jurisdictions has decreased (-2,7%). This decrease results from the fact that the number of completed cases (around 788 918) was higher than the number of incoming cases (around 747 387). The clearance rate36, which measures how the judicial system is coping with the in-flow of cases and how the backlog is reduced, was 106% in 2008 as against 101% in 2007. It should be noted that since 2006, the clearance rate has been above 100% and is constantly slightly increasing.

2) Civil proceedings

As regards “higher” civil courts, not only the number of incoming cases equals that of the completed cases, but the statistics for the years 2003-2008 show a stable average length of proceedings (4 months, with a decrease to 3 months in 2008) and a decrease in the backlog (from 7267 to 5751 cases in the same period).

On the contrary, the statistics for the years 2003-2007 show an increase in the average length of civil proceedings before first instance jurisdictions (from 24 in 2003 to 33 months in 2007), as well as a substantial growing backlog in the civil field (from approximately 1.12 million pending cases in 2003, to 1.25 million in 2007).

Concerning first-instance courts, a first positive signal was noted in 2008, when the average length of proceedings decreased compared to 2007 (from 33 to 30 months). Positive results regarding these courts have also been noted regarding declaratory actions, insofar as in 2008 the number of completed cases exceeded the number of incoming cases (111 202 and 102 687 cases respectively) and the average length of proceedings has sensibly decreased (from 33 months in 2007 to 24 months in 2008). However, such proceedings represent only around 10% of civil litigation before first-instance courts.

In this context, it should be noted that the reform introduced by Law-decree No. 303/2007, amending the Code of Civil Procedure with the aim of reducing the number of appeals brought in general and to the Supreme Court in particular, applies only to proceedings initiated after its entry in force on 1 January 2008 and it has not yet produced the desired impact on the length of proceedings.

As to the ad hoc chambers established to treat the backlog (“Juízos” of the first-instance civil court of Lisbon), they have been gradually phased out and ended their functions as of 31 August 2009.

3) Criminal proceedings

Between 2003 and 2007 a reduction in the backlog was noted, from 230 000 to 208 000 cases (before first-instance courts) and from 4500 to 3600 cases (before “higher” courts) in 2003-2007. The reform of criminal proceedings which entered in force on 15 September 2007 has contributed.

In fact, in the same period the number of completed cases was higher than the number of incoming cases: 210 137 and 203 573 respectively before first-instance courts and 12 632 and 12 429 respectively before “higher” courts. In 2008, the total number of completed cases before first-instance courts was again higher than the number of incoming cases (242 000 and 172 480 cases respectively).

In the same period (2003-2007) the average length of proceedings before “higher” courts also decreased (from 5 to 4 months), while a slight increase in the length of proceedings before first- instance courts was registered (from 12 to 14 months).

It is also worth noting that in 2008 the number of incoming cases before criminal courts decreased by around 33%. Thus, as regards first-instance courts, the number of incoming cases in 2007 was around 203 000, while in 2008 it was around 172 000. The decrease in the number of incoming cases appears to be the main cause of the important decrease in the backlog observed in 2008 beofre these courts (from 208 104 cases at the end of 2007 to 137 880 cases at the end of 2008). No data on the impact of this decrease on the backlog and on the average length of proceedings before these jurisdictions are available to date.

4) Administrative proceedings

Between 1994 and 2000 pending cases and registered cases before the Supreme Administrative Court dropped by 50%. This evolution obviously derives from the implementation of Law-decree No. 229/96, which introduced a second-instance of administrative jurisdiction (the Central Administrative Tribunal, in place since 1997) and re-organised competences between the three levels of jurisdiction.

However, in the same period, no decrease in the average length of proceedings at the three levels of jurisdiction was registered: the average length remained stable at, respectively, 14 months for the Supreme Administrative Court, 12 months for the Central Administrative Tribunal, and 15 months for administrative courts of first instance.

As regards 2003-2007, the average length of terminated administrative and fiscal proceedings before administrative courts reduced, passing from an average of 13,4 months in 2003-2006 to 13 months in 2007. As far as first-instance administrative courts are concerned, the statistics for the same period show an increase in the average length of terminated proceedings (from 13 to 23 months). No data are available for fiscal first-instance courts.

No information for 2008 has been submitted.

Furthermore, two important reforms entered in force on 1 January 2004: the reform of administrative proceedings carried out by Law. No. 13/2002 (approving the new Statute of administrative and fiscal tribunals) and Law No. 15/2002 (approving the Code of procedure applicable in administrative and fiscal tribunals, hereinafter CPTA). These two reforms aimed to provide effective judicial protection and improve access to justice by amending several procedural aspects. In particular, the means to achieve the aims areas follows:

- reorganisation of the different kinds of proceedings (ordinary, special, urgent, conservative and enforcement proceedings);

- redefinition of appeals to higher courts (i.e. per saltum appeal, providing the possibility to appeal directly before the Administrative Supreme Court in case of mere violation of substantial law or procedural rules);

- introduction of the principle of “plurality of actions” (Article 4 CPTA), allowing the filing of a single action for claims bearing the same material link;

- Introduction of the possibility to condemn public administrations acting in bad faith in the framework of administrative proceedings (Article 6 CPTA);

- attribution of the capacity to stay as a defendant to the public law corporation itself or to the concerned ministry (Article 10 CPTA), implying that claimants are no longer required to identify precisely the individual (natural person) who carried out the contested act;

- introduction of the possibility to summons public administrations in urgent proceedings, to obtain information on the status of certain administrative procedures and access to the files;

- introduction of the possibility to summons public administrations in urgent proceedings when an urgent decision is necessary in order to exercise a certain right;

- introduction of the possibility for administrative courts to adopt all conservative measures which are necessary with a view to the final judgment or to anticipate the final decision on the main claims (Article 121 CPTA), provided that the requirements of fumus boni iuris ad periculum in mora are met;

- introduction of the possibility to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court for particularly sensitive issues, in line with its role of “juridical guidance” for the lower courts (Article 150 CPTA);

- management and simplification of procedure (i.e. Article 48 CPTA, dealing with repetitive cases).

5) Enforcement proceedings

Notwithstanding the reform brought in by Law-decree No. 38/2003, the statistics for 2007-2008 show an increase in the average length of civil enforcement proceedings (from 27 to 35 months in 2003-2007), as well as a substantial increase in the backlog (from 724 000 to 976 000 pending cases for the same period).

The situation is similar, though in smaller numbers, regarding enforcement of labour courts’ cases, the average length of enforcement proceedings increasing from 17 to 28 months in the same period. However, the backlog did not increase, in particular thanks to a decrease in the number of applications (from 7900 to 5100).

A recent reform in the field of enforcement proceedings entered in force on 31 March 2009 (brought in by Law no.18/2008 and Law-Decree no. 226/2008, as well as by Ministerial Decrees no. 312, 313, 321-A and 321-B of 30 March 2009, which entered into force on 31 March 2009). It aims to simplify and expedite enforcement proceedings, as well as to avoid bringing actions devoid of purpose before courts, while at the same time continuing to protect the guarantees of the intervening parties. In particular, the reform provides:

- electronic filing, reception and distribution of enforcement requests;

- enlargement and strengthening of the role of the “enforcement agent” (agente de execução), who can make extensive use of electronic means such as databases;

- scrutiny of the activity of “enforcement agents” by an independent body with a view to increasing their efficiency;

- the possibility for lawyers to apply for posts of “enforcement agents”, thus increasing the speed with which pending proceedings may be dealt with;

the possibility to apply for arbitration;

- creation of public lists of enforcement proceedings in which a distribution to creditors did not take place for lack of debtor’s assets: the aim is to deter further creditors’ applications, the execution of which would obviously be ineffective. At the same time, such lists constitute a source of information for anyone interested in negotiating/entering into a contract with a subject or an entity subject to enforcement proceedings.

6) Measures for improving the efficiency of the judiciary

An Action Plan was adopted by the authorities in 2005 and another in 2007 aimed at reducing the congestion of courts. In particular, the 2005 Action Plan made possible:

- reduction of the period of suspension of judicial activities due to court vacations (Law No 42/2005 of 29 August 2005);

- the introduction of a “class-action” (Law decree No. 108/2006 of 8 June 2006);

The 2007 Action Plan in particular made possible:

- the creation of arbitration centres dealing with litigation in the field of intellectual property (Law Decree No. 143/2008 of 25 July 2008);

- the creation of four courts of justices of the peace in 2007 and of four more in 2008 (see in particular law-decree No. 22/2008 of 1 February 2008);

- strengthening of the mediation system in family and labour matters in all the national territory;

Further highlights in 2003-2008 were:

- the increase in 2003-2007 in the number of ordinary judges from 1633 to 1859 and of the number of public prosecutors from 1204 to 1349;

- the increase in 2005-2008 of the number of justices of the peace (julgadoz de paz) from 17 to 24; the number of cases brought before them increased from 697 in 2003 to 6453 in 2008; in 2008, 5845 proceedings were completed and 2818 remain pending;

- the increase in 2005-2007 in the number of arbitration centres (alternative dispute resolution measures) from 16 to 27 and the reduction of their backlog (1546 pending applications in 2006 and 1157 in 2007), for an equal level of equal demand (around 9 000 applications per year), which seems to imply a reduction in the waiting-time for justice;

Furthermore, in 2008, a project called “Citius” made it possible to modernise the judicial system thanks to the introduction of the digital treatment of cases and management of files.

7) Measures regarding effective remedies

In the Portuguese legal order, the remedy for excessive length of judicial proceedings was initially developed by case-law on the basis of Law-Decree No. 48051/1967 on extra-contractual civil responsibility of the state. Subsequently, Law No. 67/2007 of 31/12/2007 explicitly regulated the application of extra-contractual responsibility of the state to the violation of the right to a judicial decision within a reasonable time (Article 12).

In this framework, the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, and in particular its judgment of 28 November 2007, affirmed that applicable domestic legislation must be interpreted in conformity with the Convention case-law and that non-pecuniary damage following from the finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the ground of excessive length of proceedings must be compensated accordingly.

In its judgment in the Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro case (judgment of 10/06/2008), the European Court noted with satisfaction that the Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment of 28 November 2007, respected entirely the principles emerging from the case-law of the European Court. It found, however, that this case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court did not seem to be sufficiently consolidated in the domestic legal order, due to several divergences observed in courts’ practice. The European Court therefore found that the action on extra-contractual responsibility of the state did not offer an effective remedy in the sense of Article 13 and that such an action would not be considered as an effective remedy as long as the above case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court was consolidated in the Portuguese legal order through the harmonisation of the domestic courts’ case-law.

The European Court furthermore underlined that the existence of a remedy was not in itself sufficient, and that it was also necessary that national courts apply the European Court's case-law directly in the internal legal order and that their knowledge of such case-law is facilitated by national authorities (§65 of the Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro judgment). In response to this finding, the Portuguese authorities transmitted the judgment of the European Court, translated into Portuguese and accompanied by an explanatory note, to the Principal State Prosecutor, to the Judicial Service Commission and to the Administrative and Fiscal Tribunals Commission in view of its dissemination to the competent authorities. The judgment has been published on the website of the Centre for Research and Comparative Law of the Office of the Principal State Prosecutor (“Procuradoria Geral da Repùblica”).

Appendix II to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)34

- 25 Cases of length of judicial proceedings

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)108

a. Cases before civil courts

34422/97 Oliveira Modesto and others, judgment of 08/06/00, final on 08/09/00

54926/00 Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/03, final on 30/07/03

53997/00 Dias Da Silva and Gomes Ribeiro Martins, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 27/06/03

53534/99 Esteves, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

56345/00 Ferreira Alves No. 2, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

53937/00 Ferreira Alves, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

49671/99 Ferreira da Nave, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

56110/00 Frotal-Aluguer de Equipamentos S.A., judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

58617/00 Garcia da Silva, judgment of 29/04/2004, final on 29/07/2004

49279/99 Koncept-Conselho em Comunicação e Sensibilização de Públicos, Lda, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

52412/99 Marques Nunes, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

54566/00 Moreira and Ferreirinha, Lda and others, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03

55081/00 Neves Ferreira Sande e Castro and others, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

57323/00 Pena, judgment of 18/12/03, final on 18/03/04

48187/99 Rosa Marques and others, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

59017/00 Soares Fernandes, judgment of 08/04/2004, final on 08/07/2004

44298/98 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

b. Cases before administrative courts

52662/99 Jorge Nina Jorge and others, judgment of 19/02/04, final on 19/05/04

55340/00 Sociedade Agrícola do Peral and autre, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

c. Cases before criminal courts

48956/99 Gil Leal Pereira, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

14886/03 Monteiro da Cruz, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

50775/99 Sousa Marinho and Marinho Meireles Pinto, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

52657/99 Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

d. Case before family courts

51806/99 Figueiredo Simoes, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

e. Case before labour courts

53795/00 Farinha Martins, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

Appendix III to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)34

Statistical data provided by the Portuguese authorities

1) General statistical data on civil and criminal proceedings before the first instance courts

Procedural flow at the first instance courts 1996-2008

Considering the period 1996-2008, the year 2008 was the third consecutive year in which the number of pending cases at the first instance courts has registered a decrease (-2,7%). This decrease in case pendency is higher than the one registered in 2007. Such resulted from a decrease in the number of incoming cases (-2,5%) and from the fact that the number of completed cases has remained at the level of the year 2006, where an increase of 14,1% in relation to 2005, was verified.

In 2008, for the third consecutive year, the number of completed cases was higher than the number of incoming cases. The positive balance of 41 531 cases justifies the decrease in the pendency of around 2,7%. Such represents an improvement in relation to the value registered in 2007 and contradicts the increasing trend verified until 2005. From 1996 to 2006 the procedural pendency had continually increased because the number of completed cases has been higher than the number of incoming cases.

Pending cases37 and clearance rate38

2) Statistical data on civil proceedings

Inf. N°166/DSEJI

     

30.04.2009

       

Treatment of civil cases brought before first instance jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

       

Instance

First instance

Domain of the proceedings

Civil cases

Phase of the proceedings

New cases

Cases closed

Pending cases (at the end of the period)

Year

Number of cases

Number of cases

Number of cases

2007

512 797

541 072

1 250 549

2006

472 259

492 091

1 254 371

2005

534 497

427 014

1 311 778

2004

516 117

422 816

1 217 905

2003

517 458

442 086

1 123 994

(*) provisional data updated on 14-04-2009

Treatment of civil cases brought before higher jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

       

Instance

Higher jurisdictions

Domain of the proceedings

Civil cases

Phase of the proceedings

New cases

Cases closed

Pending cases (at the end of the period)

Year

Number of cases

Number of cases

Number of cases

2007

19 781

19 971

5 751

2006

19 641

19 824

6 955

2005

19 552

19 530

7 138

2004

19 159

19 212

7 214

2003

19 293

20 121

7 267

(*) provisional data updated on 14-04-2009

     

Average length of closed civil cases brought before first instance jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

     

Instance

First Instance

Domain of the proceedings

Civil cases

Year

Number of cases

Average length (in months)

2007

448 299

33

2006

438 425

30

2005

366 934

27

2004

344 223

25

2003

423 021

24

(*) provisional data updated on 14-04-2009

 

Average length of closed civil cases brought before higher jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

     

Instance

Higher jurisdictions

Domain of the proceedings

Civil cases

Year

Number of cases

Average length (in months)

2007

18 781

4

2006

18 428

4

2005

18 614

4

2004

17 899

4

2003

18 224

4

(*) provisional data updated on 14-04-2009

 

Treatment of civil appeals, before the Supreme Court and the appeal courts, by type of case during the years 2003 to 2008 (*)

                                     
                                     

Year, phase of the procedure


Type of case

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Registered

Closed

Pending at the end of the period

Registered

Closed

Pending at the end of the period

Registered

Closed

Pending (at the end of the period)

Registered

Closed

Pending (at the end of the period)

Registered

Closed

Pending (at the end of the period)

Registered

Closed

Pending (at the end of the period)

TOTAL

18 274

18 503

5 674

19 781

19 971

5 751

19 641

19 824

6 955

19 552

19 530

7 138

19 159

19 212

7 214

19 292

20 120

7 266

appeal

9 243

8 964

3 034

8 633

8 622

2 684

8 968

8 861

3 065

8 621

8 433

2 958

8 863

8 953

2 710

8 995

9 461

2 800

"Agravo"

3 810

4 166

919

5 454

5 431

1 265

4 771

4 909

1 712

5 369

5 520

1 850

4 532

4 680

2 130

4 648

4 721

2 278

Others

2 127

2 174

533

2 406

2 362

578

2 474

2 531

534

2 161

2 243

591

1 493

2 320

699

2 285

2 329

525

Other cases

3 094

3 199

1 188

3 288

3 556

1 224

3 428

3 523

1 644

3 401

3 334

1 739

3 271

3 259

1 675

3 364

3 609

1 663

(*) provisional data of 17.02.09

                                 

                 

Average length, in months, of appeals in civil matters before higher jurisdictions between the years 2003 and 2008 (*)

                 

Year and average length

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

 

"Area Processual" and type of case

Average length (months)

Average length (months

Average length (months

Average length (months

Average length (months

Average length (months

 

Justice in civil matters

Juridictional appeals

3

4

4

4

4

4

 

(*) Provisional data of 17.02.09

                 

         

3) Statistical data on criminal proceedings

Treatment of criminal cases brought before first instance jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

       

Instance

First instance

Domain of the proceedings

Criminal cases

Phase of the proceedings

New cases

Cases closed

Pending cases (at the end of the period)

Year

Number of cases

Number of cases

Number of cases

2007

203 573

210 137

208 104

2006

212 444

200 023

233 056

2005

184 180

168 674

246 378

2004

183 042

164 006

242 427

2003

191 219

167 660

230 710

(*) provisional data updated on 14-04-2009

   

Treatment of criminal cases brought before higher jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

       

Instance

Higher jurisdictions

Domain of the proceedings

Criminal cases

Phase of the proceedings

New cases

Cases closed

Pending cases (at the end of the period)

Year

Number of cases

Number of cases

Number of cases

2007

12 429

12 632

3 623

2006

12 373

12 397

6 288

2005

11 742

10 626

6 498

2004

11 469

10 386

5 624

2003

10 765

10 191

4 541

(*) provisional data updated on 14-04-2009

   
       

Average length of closed civil cases brought before first instance jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

     

Instance

First Instance

Domain of the proceedings

Criminal cases

Year

Number of cases

Average length (in months)

2007

187 360

14

2006

98 697

12

2005

95 404

11

2004

98 185

11

2003

99 039

12

(*) provisional data updated on 14-04-2009

 

Average length of closed criminal cases brought before higher jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

     

Instance

Higher jurisdictions

Domain of the proceedings

Criminal cases

Year

Number of cases

Average length (in months)

2007

11 054

4

2006

11 238

5

2005

9 486

5

2004

9 193

5

2003

9 133

5

(*) provisional data updated on 14-04-2009

 

4) Statistical data on administrative proceedings

Average length of closed cases in administrative and fiscal cases, brought before first instance jurisdictions and before higher jurisdictions, by type of jurisdiction, during the years 2003 to 2007

             
             

Instance

First instance

Higher jurisdictions

Domain of the proceedings

Administrative and tax cases

Administrative and fiscal cases

Type of jurisdiction

Fiscal courts

Administrative tribunals

 

Year

Number of cases

Average length
(in months)

Number of cases

Average length
(in months)

Number of cases

Average length
(in months)

2007

nd

nd

7250

23

4372

13

2006

nd

nd

6273

16

4585

16

2005

nd

nd

5977

15

4529

13

2004

nd

nd

3822

15

4432

14

2003

nd

nd

3950

13

5024

11

5) Statistical data on enforcement proceedings

Average length of closed cases concerning enforcement proceedings before first instance jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007

             

Cases

2007(*)

2006

2005

2004

2003

 

Total

35

35

32

31

26

 

Enforcement proceedings relating to civil cases

35

36

32

31

27

 

Enforcement proceedings relating to labour cases

28

19

19

19

17

 

(*) Provisional data updated on 20/02/09

           
             

Treatment of cases concerning enforcement proceedings before first instance jurisdictions during the years 2003 to 2007(*)

             

Year

2007(*)

2006

2005

2004

2003

Domain of the proceedings

Phase of the proceedings

Number of cases

Number of cases

Number of cases

Number of cases

Number of cases

Total

New cases

313 207

292 735

348 275

320 773

304 315

Closed cases

311 025

277 069

228 195

221 675

202 863

Pending cases (at the end of the period)

987 249

968 155

957 392

838 807

736 238

civil justice

New cases

308 051

285 063

339 403

312 319

296 353

Closed cases

306 071

269 668

220 988

215 936

195 317

pending cases (at the end of the period)

976 222

952 206

942 025

824 638

724 874

Labour/employment justice

New cases

5 156

7 672

8 872

8 454

7 962

Closed cases

4 954

7 401

7 207

5 739

7 546

pending cases (at the end of the period)

11 027

15 949

15 367

14 169

11 364

(*)Provisional data updated on 20/02/09

         

Note: Up to the year 2006, all the enforcement proceedings ("execuções") brought before the labour courts ("tribunais do trabalho") or having competences in relation to labour law/disputes were considered as labour related enforcement proceedings. After 2007, with the changes to the "recolha" method, only the enforcement proceedings in labour cases are considered as enforcement proceedings in relation to work related disputes, whether they are exercised ot not before labour courts or courts that are competent to hear work related disputes.

Number of "tribunais de execução" (enforcement courts)

Year

Court

Chamber

2008

"Juízos de Execução" - Lisboa

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

3.º Juízo de Execução

"Juízos de Execução" - Porto

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

"Juízos de Execução" - Guimarães

Juízo Único

"Juízos de Execução" - Oeiras

Juízo Único

"Juízos de Execução" - Maia

Juízo Único

"Juízos de Execução" - V.N.Gaia

Juízo Único

2007

"Juízos de Execução" - Lisboa

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

3.º Juízo de Execução

"Juízos de Execução" - Porto

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

"Juízos de Execução" - Guimarães

Juízo Único

"Juízos de Execução" - Oeiras

Juízo Único

"Juízos de Execução" - Maia

Juízo Único

"Juízos de Execução" - V.N.Gaia

Juízo Único

2006

"Juízos de Execução" - Lisboa

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

3.º Juízo de Execução

"Juízos de Execução" - Porto

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

"Juízos de Execução" - Guimarães

Juízo Único

"Juízos de Execução" - Oeiras

Juízo Único

2005

"Juízos de Execução" - Lisboa

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

3.º Juízo de Execução

"Juízos de Execução" - Porto

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

2004

"Juízos de Execução" - Lisboa

1.º Juízo de Execução

2.º Juízo de Execução

"Juízos de Execução" - Porto

1.º Juízo de Execução

6) Statistical data on measures to improve the efficiency of the judiciary

Treatment of cases brought before the justices of the peace during the years 2003 to 2008

             

 

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

New cases

6453

6003

5061

3541

2535

697

Total number of cases examined

8663

7463

6040

4155

2702

744

Total number of closed cases

5845

5254

4622

3147

2076

577

By Mediation

1460

1438

1143

898

694

224

By judgment

2578

2575

2255

1488

949

272

by transaction/friendly settlement

885

893

890

594

404

132

by judge's decision

1693

1682

1365

894

545

140

for another motive

1807

1241

1224

761

433

81

Total number of on-going cases

2818

2209

1418

1008

626

167

Initial phase/Pre-mediation

1681

1548

1012

629

384

118

Mediation phase

40

30

53

24

28

17

Judgment phase

1097

631

353

355

214

32

Number of judges of the peace sitting in district courts during the years 2005 to 2009

   

Years

Number of judges of the peace

2005

17

2006

17

2007

 

Up to 14th April

17

From 14th April to 31 October

16

From 1rst November to 31 December

15

2008

 

From 1rst January to 10 October

15

From 11 October to 31 December

24

2009

24

Treatment of cases brought before arbitration centres, during the years 2003 to 2005

                   

Year, phase of proceedings


Arbitration centres

2003

2004

2005

Registered during the period

Closed during the period

pending for the following period

Registered during the period

Closed during the period

pending for the following period

Registered during the period

Closed during the period

pending for the following period

GENERAL TOTAL

7834

7639

1208

9383

9148

1492

10395

10462

1468

CIAB-CIMA de Conso.do Vale do Cávado

402

361

104

500

456

148

575

597

126

AC of the bar

-

-

-

5

7

11

6

3

14

AC for "consumer conflicts" of Coimb

189

189

24

190

191

23

191

178

36

AC for "Consumer Conflicts" of Lisboa

846

850

58

745

738

65

967

922

110

AC for "Consumer Conflicts" of Val dode Lisboa

247

249

49

478

402

125

403

384

144

AC for disputes relating to car repairs

534

440

339

420

491

243

439

485

197

AC for disputes concerning Work relating to sport

163

141

47

156

167

29

159

158

30

A.C of Loulé

31

32

..

44

38

7

40

41

6

C. information Consommation Arbitrage Porto

3099

3084

48

3391

3391

48

3565

3552

61

"Serv. Reg. Conciliação Arbitragem Trab."

822

826

45

819

814

47

803

773

76

C.A Voluntária da ADJUVA A-Serv.Ampr.,Lda

16

16

..

3

3

..

..

..

..

C.A. da Ass.ind.const.civ.e ob.pub.norte

..

..

..

3

3

6

..

..

6

A.C for "Consumer Conflicts" of the Algrave

-

-

-

244

160

145

313

386

72

Portuguese Federation of Basket-Ball

-

-

-

..

..

..

..

..

..

C.I.M.A for car insurance

1485

1451

493

2301

2204

590

2766

2915

484

PROJURIS-Cent.de Est.Proc.Civis. E Juris

-

-

-

83

83

5

166

66

105

(..) Resultat equal to zero/Protected by artitistic confidentiality

                 

(-) the phenomenon does not exist

                 

Treatment of cases brought before arbitration centers, during the years 2006 to 2007

             

Year, phase of proceedings

2006

2007

Arbitration center

Registered during the period

Closed during the period

pending for the following period

Registered during the period

Closed during the period

pending for the following period

GENERAL TOTAL

8555

8462

1546

8706

9085

1152

Arbitral

3

3

..

..

..

..

Consumer Vale do Cávado

674

639

161

748

720

189

Commercial

20

12

27

16

22

21

Civil Commercial Administrative

6

10

10

9

5

14

Portuguese Catholic University

..

..

..

..

..

..

Consumer Coimbra

200

220

16

163

152

27

Consumer Lisboa

973

947

136

1472

1450

158

Consumer Vale do Ave

341

406

79

341

339

81

Automobile sector

425

434

188

518

510

196

Professional players

115

137

8

74

71

11

Loulé

31

37

..

21

21

..

Consumer Porto

491

500

52

582

575

59

Com.C Arb trab Ponta Delgada

561

534

55

542

560

37

Bâtiment Travaux Publics

5

6

5

..

5

..

Consommation do Algarve

198

216

54

131

165

20

Fédér. Portugaise de Basket-Ball

..

..

..

..

..

..

Assurance Automobiles

3220

3110

594

3758

4095

257

Commercial do Porto

3

..

9

10

6

13

Professional football league

..

..

..

3

..

..

Lisbonense de Proprietários

34

40

48

..

8

42

Real estate activities

10

8

..

5

6

..

Autonomous Region of Maderas

..

..

9

114

110

13

Judicial sciences

971

956

15

..

..

..

Com. Con. Arb. Trabalho Horta

93

82

21

70

90

..

Com. C Arb Angra Heroismo

180

161

57

126

173

10

(..) Resultat equal to zero/Protected by artitistic confidentiality

           

(-) the phenomenon does not exist

           

Judges and prosecutors in fist instance or higher jurisdictions on 31 December, during the years 2003

to 2007

 

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

         

Judges

1.633

1.767

1.810

1.840

1.859

         

Men

957

963

956

950

936

         

Women

676

804

854

890

923

         

Prosecutors

1.204

1.265

1.277

1.336

1.349

         

Men

637

630

620

633

616

         

Women

567

635

657

703

733

         

Section 4.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3539

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

in 31 cases against the Russian Federation mainly concerning conditions of detention in remand prisons

(See Appendix I for the list of cases in the Kalashnikov group)

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 in which the Court has found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the conditions under which the applicants were detained in remand prisons (SIZOs) which amounted to degrading treatment due, in particular, to the severe lack of personal space or to the combination of the space factor with other deficiencies of the physical detention conditions such as the impossibility of using the toilet in private, lack of ventilation, lack of access to natural light and fresh air, inadequate heating arrangements, and non-compliance with basic sanitary requirements;

Recalling further that in a number of judgments the Court found violations of Article 5 due to the unlawful detention of the applicants, its excessive length in the absence of relevant and sufficient grounds for prolonged detention and the lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of detention;

Recalling finally that the Court also found violations of Article 13 of the Convention due to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of conditions of detention on remand;

Recalling that the existence of structural problems and the pressing need for comprehensive general measures were stressed by the Committee and acknowledged by the Russian authorities since the adoption by the Court of the judgment in the case of Kalashnikov against Russia in 2002;

Recalling furthermore that in its Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)123 adopted on 4 June 2003 in the Kalashnikov case, the Committee noted the progress in the adoption of general measures required by the Court’s judgments and called upon the authorities to continue and enhance various reforms under way;

Having examined the information provided by the Russian authorities concerning the progress made in the implementation of the judgments mentioned above since the adoption of the first Interim Resolution (this information appears in the Appendix II to this resolution);

As regards material conditions of detention:

Noting with great interest that since the Kalashnikov judgment, the Federal Programme aimed at building new remand prisons and renovating a great number of existing ones, in particular to improve material conditions of detention, has been implemented and that a similar programme with the declared cost of 1 327 million euro was adopted for 2007-2016;

Noting further that according to the information provided by the Russian authorities, the implementation of these programmes resulted in the improvement of material conditions of detention and in particular the average increase of personal space to 4,85 m² per detainee;

Noting however that there are still remand prisons where the number of remand prisoners exceeds the design capacity of the facilities, and the requirement of Russian legislation concerning personal space is not complied with;

Noting in this respect additional targeted measures to improve the material conditions of detention in remand prisons posing problems;

Noting in particular the role of prosecutors in ensuring compliance of the conditions of detention with the requirements of domestic law;

Recalling that in any event the creation of new places of detention cannot in itself provide a lasting solution to the problem of prison overcrowding, and that this measure should be closely supported by others aimed at reducing the overall number of remand prisoners;

Noting with satisfaction in this respect the Russian authorities’ position that there should be an integrated approach to finding solutions to the problem of overcrowding in remand prisons, including in particular changes to the legal framework, practices and attitudes;

As regards the number of remand prisoners:

Recalling the constant position of the Committee of Ministers that, in view both of presumption of innocence and the presumption in favour of liberty, remand in custody shall be the exception rather than the norm and only a measure of last resort, and that to avoid inappropriate use of remand in custody the widest possible range of alternative, less restrictive measures shall be made available;

Noting the repeated statements by the President of the Russian Federation and high-ranked officials, including the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice, that thousands of persons detained on remand – up to 30 % of those currently detained – should not have been deprived of their liberty, being suspected or accused of offences of low or medium gravity;

Welcoming the unambiguous commitment, renewed at the highest political level, to change this unacceptable situation and to adopt urgent legislative and other measures to that effect;

Taking note in this context of legislative initiatives to ensure effective use of alternative preventive measures provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure;

Noting further the rulings of the Supreme Court, namely the Ruling of 29 October 2009 reiterating that remand in custody should be a measure of last resort and providing guidelines on the application of alternative preventive measures,

Noting that the statistical data provided demonstrates a slight but constant decrease in the overall number of remand prisoners;

Further noting that the statistics nonetheless demonstrate wider yet still limited recourse to alternative preventive measures by the Russian courts, prosecutors and investigators;

Considering that efforts should be pursued effectively to induce judges, prosecutors and investigators to use detention on remand as a genuinely exceptional measure;

Recalling in this respect its Recommendations Rec(2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse, R(99)22 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, and Rec(2006)2 on the European Prison Rules;

As regards remedies in respect of conditions of detention on remand:

Recalling the Court’s consistent position that available remedies are considered effective if they could have prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or could have afforded the applicant appropriate redress;

Noting that the statistics and several cases presented to the Committee demonstrate a developing practice before domestic courts on compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained in relation to poor conditions of detention in remand prisons;

Noting further that in view of the problems at issue, any compensatory remedy should as far as possible be supplemented by other remedies capable of preventing violations of Article 3 of the Convention;

Noting in this respect information on the avenues provided by Russian legislation to address the violations of Article 3 at issue;

Noting in particular the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Ruling of the Supreme Court of Russia of 10 February 2009 providing the possibility to challenge before courts acts or inaction of remand prison administrations concerning improper detention conditions;

Considering however that the effectiveness of this remedy in particular with regard to overcrowding, has not yet been demonstrated;

      ENCOURAGES the Russian authorities to pursue the ongoing reforms with a view to aligning the conditions of detention in remand prisons with the requirements of the Convention, taking also into account the relevant standards and recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

      EXPRESS CONCERN that notwithstanding the measures adopted, a number of remand prisons in Russia still do not afford the personal space guaranteed by domestic legislation, and remain overpopulated;

      STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the Russian authorities to give priority to reforms aiming at reducing the number of persons detained on remand and to other measures combating the overcrowding of remand facilities by

          · ensuring that judges, prosecutors and investigators consider and use detention on remand as a solution of last resort and make wider use of alternative preventive measures;

          · ensuring the availability at the national level of effective preventive and compensatory remedies allowing adequate and sufficient redress for any violation of Article 3 resulting from poor conditions of detention on remand;

      INVITES the authorities to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of progress in the implementation of general measures to comply with their obligations under the Convention, notably by providing statistics regarding the number of remand prisoners and information on the conditions of their detention;

      DECIDES to resume the examination of these cases at the latest at the first DH meeting in 2011.

Appendix I to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)35

Detention facilities and periods of the applicants’ detention

Application

Period(s) of detention

Facility

47095/99 Kalashnikov

29/06/1995 to 20/10/1999, from 9/12/1999 to 26/06/2000

IZ/47-1 in Magadan

1750/03 Andreyevskiy

31/05/2002 to 28/03/2005

IZ-77/1 in Moscow

22107/03 Antropov

16/02/2001/ to 5/03/2003

IZ-25/2 in Ussuriysk

67253/01 Babushkin

11/02/2000 to 17/07/2000

SIZO 32/1 (later renamed SIZO 52/1) in Nizhny Novgorod

37810/03 Bagel

21/02/2000 to 23/05/2003

IZ-17/1 in Barnaul

28617/03 Belashev

19/04/2002 to 11/04/2003

IZ-77/3 in Moscow

106/02 Benediktov

19/12/1999 to 28/11/2000; November 2000 to November 2001

IZ-77/2 (first period), IZ-77/3 in Moscow

68337/01 Buzychkin

5/06/1998 to 16/03/1999; 17/03/1999 to 28/05/1999

IZ-32/1 in Nizhny Novgorod (first period); IZ-48/3 in Moscow

39420/03 Bychkov

5/06/2000 to 30/05/2002; 30/05/2002 to 28/10/2002; 28/10/2002 to 14/08/2003; 14/08/2003 to 9/09/2003

IZ-77/2 (first and third periods) IZ-77/3 in Moscow

66802/01 Dorokhov

2/10/1998 to 4/02/2000

IZ-48/1 in Moscow

205/02 Frolov Andrey

21/01/1999 to 16/02/2003

IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg

22/03 Grigoryevskikh

27/08/2001 to 12/07/2002

IZ-36/2 in Borisoglebsk

30983/02 Grishin

12/05/2001 to 16/04/2002

IZ-24/1in Krasnoyarsk

36941/02 Gubkin

15/06/1998 to 25/04/2005

IZ-61/1 in Rostov-on-Don

24650/02 Guliyev

4/02/2000 to 25/01/2002

IZ-7/2 in Sosnogorsk

34000/02 Ivanov Igor

29/12/2000 to 28/01/2002; 28/01/2002 to 28/06/2002

IZ-77/1 in Moscow (first period); IZ-77/3 in Moscow

67086/01 Korobov and others

First and second applicants: 4/02/1998 to 14/07/1998; 14/12/1999 to 23/05/2000; 3/04/2001 to 5/04/2001; third applicant: 4/02/1998 to 13/07/1998; 28/12/1999 to 23/05/2000

IZ-37/1 in Ivanovo

62208/00 Labzov

16/05/2000 to 1/08/2000

IZ-21/2 in Tsivilsk

25664/05 Lind

16/12/2004 to 8/12/2005

IZ-77/2 in Moscow

6270/06 Lyubimenko

Since 25/07/2003 (proceedings were still pending when the Court delivered its judgment on 19/03/2009)

IZ-34/1 in Volgograd

15217/07 Makarov Aleksandr

6/12/2006 to 20/04/2009

Tomsk Town temporary detention facility

6954/02 Maltabar and Maltabar

16/12/2000 to 24/07/2001 (first applicant); 16/12/2000 to 31/07/2001 (second applicant)

IZ-69/1 in Tver

14850/03 Matyush

8/03/1999 to 21/04/2003

IZ-55/1 in Omsk

63378/00 Mayzit

26/07/2000 to 7/03/2001; 16/05/2001 to 18/07/2001

IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad

22625/02 Mironov

27/05/2002 to 5/10/2002

IZ-50/9 Moscow region

Application

Period(s) of detention

Facility

11982/02 Novinskiy

11/06/2001 to 16/06/2001; 16/06/2001 to 12/11/2001; 13/11/2001 to 5/12/2001

IZ-63/1 in Samara (first and third periods); IZ-77/3 in Moscow

66460/01 Novoselov

27/10/1998 to 28/04/1999

IZ-18/3 (renamed IZ-23/3 on 13 June 2001) in Novorossiysk

1606/02 Popov and Vorobyov

24/01/2000 to 20/02/2001

IZ-25/1 in Vladivostok

15591/03 Seleznev

25/03/2001 to 25/02/2002; 30/05/2002 to 8/01/2003

IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg

23691/06 Shteyn (Stein)

25/04/2005 to 30/07/2008

IZ-70/1 in Tomsk

42239/02 Starokadomskiy

May 1998 to 23/12/2005

IZ-77/1 in Moscow

3130/03 Sudarkov

22/05/2000 to 23/04/2002; 23/04/2002 to 6/09/2002;

IZ-77/2 (first period); IZ-77/3 in Moscow

63955/00 Sukhovoy

8/01/2000 to 2/08/2000

IZ-33/1 in Ivanovo

36898/03 Trepashkin

14 days (split into 3 periods) in November 2003

IZ-50/2 in Volokolamsk

Appendix II to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)35

Information provided by the Government of the Russian Federation during the examination of the Kalashnikov group of cases by the Committee of Ministers

I. General measures taken to improve material conditions of detention on remand

1. The Federal Programme for reforming the Ministry of Justice’s penitentiary system for 2002-2006

The Programme, adopted by the Government’s decision of 29 August 2001, was aimed at the building of new remand prisons (SIZOs) as well as the renovation and reconstruction of existing facilities with the view to increasing the number of places available. As a result of its implementation, the number of places in Russian SIZOs increased by 13 100.

2. The Federal Target Programme “Development of the penitentiary system for 2007-2016”

a) Rationale and objectives

The Programme, adopted by a decision of the Russian Government of 5 September 2006, is aimed at “aligning the conditions of pre-trial detention with the requirements of the Russian legislation with the view to complying with the international standards of detention of remand prisoners”.

At the time of the programme’s adoption, the requirement of the Russian legislation to provide remand prisoners with 4 sq. m of personal space was observed in only 40 regions of the Russian Federation. In 18 regions remand prisoners were provided with less than 3 sq. m of personal space. It was suggested that, by 1 January 2007, 100 remand prisons out of 209 (47,8%) would afford to remand prisoners personal space required by the domestic legislation.

The programme provides for the reconstruction and renovation of existing pre-trial detention facilities and the construction of 26 new detention facilities providing remand prisoners with 7 sq. meters of personal space. The declared cost of the programme is 54 588,2 million rubles (approximately 1 327 million euros).

By the end of each year of the programme’s implementation the number of remand prisons (as a percentage of the total number of remand prisons) complying with the requirements of the domestic legislation should increase as indicated below:

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

53,1

58,4

64,4

71,1

78,4

85,8

92,2

94,7

97

100

b) Implementation of the Programme

In 2007, the Government allotted 2 100 million rubles (51,5 million euros) for the building of new remand prisons and the reconstruction and renovation of existing ones. Due to the programme, 914 new places complying with the requirements of domestic legislation have been created. In a number of facilities the gas supply, heating and canalisation systems have been renovated. As a result, the number of remand prisons offering conditions of detention compatible with domestic standards reached 53,7%.

In 2008, the Government allotted 2 200 million rubles (54 million euros) to the Programme which allowed the creation of 1308 new places in remand prisons. In particular, a new building of the remand prison IZ-77/4 for 1200 places was constructed in Moscow, ahead the scheduled date. As a result, the number of remand prisons offering conditions of detention compatible with domestic standards reached 54%.

In 2009, the financing of the Programme was reduced by 30%. It is planned to reduce the financing of the Programme in 2010 by 45%.

c) Current situation

The total capacity of remand prisons has increased from 144901 places on 1 January 2007 up to 151161 places on 1 January 2010 (see below).

Year

Overall remand prison capacity in Russia

Total number of remand prisoners in Russia

2007

144901

144550

2008

148866

144306

2009

150485

133215

2010

151161

124611

The average personal space afforded to a remand prisoner in Russia has increased from 4,1 sq. m in 2007 to 4,85 sq. m in 2010.

According to the statistics, in several regions the total number of remand prisoners exceeds the capacity of the remand prisons and the average personal space afforded to remand prisoners is still below 4 sq. m, contrary to the domestic legislation.

The remand prisons are being renovated using the modern construction materials and technologies. Double-glazed windows, artificial ventilation systems and new sanitary equipments are being installed. The walls are being painted in light colours. In all remand prisons the metallic shutters have been removed from cell windows in order to ensure access to natural light and fresh air.

3. Mid-term programme “Remand Prison – 2006”

On 1 December 2004 the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences adopted a mid-term programme “Remand Prison – 2006”, with a declared cost of 1565,3 million rubles (384,7 million euros). The programme was aimed at improving the material conditions of detention and decreasing the number of remand prisoners.

In his decree of 31 January 2005 concerning the implementation of the programme, the Director of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences identified the regions and remand prisons where the overcrowding problem was acute.

In 12 (out of 77) regions, where 51 remand prisons were situated, the average personal space afforded to a remand prisoner varied between 3,1 and 3,5 sq. m and the design capacity of the facilities was exceeded by up to 30% (overcrowding rate). These were Rostov, Irkutsk, Novosibirsk, Kurgan, Sverdlov, Tver, Khabarovsk, St-Petersburg and Moscow regions, Republics of Tatarstan and Kabardino-Balkaria, City of Moscow.

In 7 regions, where 11 remand prisons were situated, the average personal space varied between 2,6 and 3 sq. m and the overcrowding rate was between 31 and 50% ( Saratov, Kaliningrad, Kaluga, Yaroslavl and Nizhniy Novgorod regions, Republics of Chuvashyia and Tyva).

In 2 regions, where 3 remand prisons functioned, the average personal space was less than 2,5 sq. m and the overcrowding rate was more than 50% (Vladimir and Chita regions).

In his decree, the Director of Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences identified the 36 most problematic remand prisons and ordered specific measures such as reconstruction and renovation of the existing facilities and construction of new ones.

To implement the programme, several new remand prisons have been constructed. In addition to the construction of new remand prisons, the reconstruction and renovation of existing facilities allowed, only in the Moscow Region, an increase in the number of places by 156 in remand prison 10, 154 in remand prison 2, 72 in remand prison 7 and 174 in remand prison 12.

The authorities provided updated information on the situation in the remand prisons referred to as the most problematic in the decree of 31/01/2005 (see below) and indicated that in order to solve the overcrowding problem in the facilities where it still persists, a number of new remand prisons are being constructed. Thus, 2 new facilities are being constructed in the Moscow Region with a total capacity of 1040 places, a new remand prison with 551 places is being constructed in the Khabarovsk Region. New facilities are also being constructed in the Novosibirk and Zabaykal Regions, Republics of Tatarstan and Chuvashya.

Remand prison

Prison population rate

(in percentage as compared to the facility’s design capacity), as identified in the decree of 31/01/2005

Current population rate

Personal space (in sq. m) per detainee

IZ-65/1 (Rostov-on-Don)

145,3

69,3

5,8

IZ-77/1 (Moscow)

132,9

78,6

5,1

IZ-77/2 (Moscow)

128,1

97,3

4,1

IZ-77/3 (Moscow)

148,9

96,2

4,2

IZ-77/5 (Moscow)

133,8

76,6

5,2

IZ-38/1 (Irkutsk)

169,5

96,1

4,2

IZ-54/1 (Novosibirsk)

144,1

138,5

2,9

IZ-45/1 (Kurgan)

128,6

86,3

4,6

IZ-16/1 (Kazan)

140,5

109,1

3,7

IZ-16/3 (Bugulma)

140,7

65,1

6,1

IZ-66/1 (Yekaterinburg)

144,6

144,2

2,8

IZ-66/3 (Nizhniy Tagil)

123,8

147,2

2,7

IZ-27/1 (Khabarovsk)

146,9

105,3

3,8

IZ-69/1 (Tver)

136,8

67,8

5,9

IZ-47/1 (St-Petersburg)

152,4

98,0

4,1

IZ-47/4 (St-Petersburg)

131,9

96,9

4,1

IZ-47/6 (Gorelovo)

126,2

100,4

4,0

IZ-64/1 (Saratov)

135,3

58,9

6,8

IZ-39/1 (Kaliningrad)

158,3

76,4

5,2

IZ-40/1 (Kaluga)

144,4

90,3

4,4

IZ-76/1 (Yaroslavl)

147,0

59,0

6,8

IZ-21/1 (Cheboksary)

186,3

117,5

3,4

IZ-52/1 (Nizhniy Novgorod)

149,1

99,6

4,0

IZ-17/1 (Kyzyl)

150,0

100,3

4,0

IZ-33/1 (Vladimir)

199,0

88,6

4,5

IZ-75/1 (Chita)

237,6

110,6

3,6

IZ-50/1 (Noginsk)

142,8

110,6

3,6

IZ-50/2 (Volokolamsk)

136,0

88,0

4,5

IZ-50/3 (Serpukhov)

71,9

84,5

4,7

IZ-50/4 (Mozhaysk)

148,9

95,9

4,2

IZ-50/5 (Kashira)

184,0

154,0

2,6

IZ-50/6 (Kolomna)

129,1

106,2

3,8

IZ-50/7 (Yegoryevsk)

137,8

101,9

3,9

IZ-50/8 (Sergiyev Posad)

170,8

110,2

3,6

IZ-50/9 renamed 70/7 (Moscow, Kapotnya)

44,9

78,1

5,1

IZ-7/1 (Nalchik)

127,6

69,3

5,8

II. General measures taken to reduce the number of remand prisoners

According to the statistics provided, the total number of remand prisoners detained in SIZOs on 1 January 2010 was 124 611. On 1 January 2007 there were 144 550 remand prisoners.

According to the authorities, there is a decrease in a number of persons admitted into remand prisons. Thus, there were 386 900, 384 900 and 378 800 admissions in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. During the first six month of 2009, there were 181 800 admissions.

1. Legislative amendments

The authorities informed the Committee that draft laws are being elaborated to ensure the effective application of the alternative measures provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure such as bail and house arrest.

2. Measures taken by the Supreme Court of Russia

a) Ruling of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia of 27 September 2006 “On the results of the examining the judicial practice concerning detention on remand”

The Supreme Court, having summarised the judicial practice in the area, identified a number of shortcomings and announced a number of measures to remedy them. The main shortcomings were the following:

- courts’ very formal approach in ordering detention, as they limit themselves to mentioning the grounds provided for by Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) without specifying facts justifying that such grounds are satisfied;

- detention of persons prosecuted for offences of minor and average importance in the absence of exceptional circumstances required by CCP;

- courts’ failure to take into account the defendant’s personal circumstances, contrary to the provisions of CCP;

- failure of cassation and nadzor courts to fully address the defendants’ arguments given in their application for release.

The Supreme Court stressed the need for not accepting requests for detention which are not supported by detailed materials on the personal situation of the defendant. It also stressed the need for the presidents of regional courts to carry out regular monitoring of the judicial practice on detention on remand and to discuss the results of the monitoring with judges at least every three months. The Supreme Court organised conferences on detention on remand in the courts where the shortcomings of judicial practice have been identified.

b) Ruling of the Presidium of the Supreme Court N° 22 of 29 October 2009 “On the application of preventive measures such as remand, bail and house arrest”.

The Supreme Court stressed that

- detention on remand can only be ordered when other preventive measures cannot be applied;

- while considering the grounds for detention on remand indicated in the CCP, judges should assure that these grounds are real and well-founded, that is supported by truthful information; judges should also take due account of the personal circumstances of defendants;

- the absence of a formal registration of a defendant on the Russian territory cannot be blankly considered as the absence of a permanent place of residence;

- provisions of the CCP establishing maximum periods of detention pending investigation and pending trial should be observed; all courts’ decisions concerning the prolongation of detention on remand should clearly indicate the period for which the detention is extended and the end date of the detention order.

The Supreme Court further provided lower courts with explanations on the application of the CCP provisions concerning release on bail and house arrest.

The Supreme Court recommended that the lower courts monitor and regularly summarise the judicial practice concerning detention on remand.

3. Measures taken by the Public Prosecutor Office

In 2009, public prosecutors refused to support in court 5 697 investigators’ applications for detention on remand or prolongation. This represents 1,6% of all applications.

4. Use of alternative measures

According to the statistics provided by the Supreme Court, in 2007 Russian courts received 244 846 applications for detention on remand of which 222 201 have been granted. In 2008 there were 230 269 applications and 207 465 remand orders. In 2009, 208 416 applications for detention on remand were submitted and 187 793 granted.

During the second half of the year 2008, bail was used in 407 cases. During the first half of 2009, there were 599 cases of release on bail.

It appears that in 2007 the investigators of the Investigating Committee requested the use of house arrest in 9 cases and of bail in 36 cases. In 2008, they submitted 28 applications for house arrest and 74 application for release on bail. In 2009, there were 74 applications for house arrest and 91 applications for release on bail.

III. Avenues to address the violations of Article 3

1. Court actions

a) Compensatory actions

The authorities have provided some examples from domestic judicial practice to show that, by virtue of Article 1069 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is possible for remand detainees to obtain compensation for damage sustained in relation to poor detention conditions. According to the statistics provided by the Supreme Court, between January 2006 and June 2009, 943 claims for damages were submitted to domestic courts. The courts granted 233 claims, refused 325 claims and suspended 376 actions for non-compliance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

b) Complaints

The authorities indicated that Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a procedure for challenging State authorities' acts or inaction in courts. If a court finds that the complaint is well-founded, it orders the State authority concerned to remedy the breach or unlawfulness found. In its Ruling of 10 February 2009, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed that it was open to remand prisoners to “challenge acts of remand prisons’ administration […], concerning improper detention conditions (for example, failure to provide due medical care) or decisions concerning disciplinary sanctions” on the basis of the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Detention of Suspects Act (Federal Law no. 103-FZ of 15 July 1995) provides for the possibility to for remand prisoners to complain, including to a court, about violations of their rights.

2. Complaints to prison administrations

The Detention of Suspects Act also provides for the remand prisoners’ right to request an appointment with the remand prisons’ directors.

3. Actions of public prosecutors

In accordance with the Prosecution Authority Act (Federal Law no. 2202-1 of 17 January 1992), public prosecutors carried out 4 290 inspections of SIZOs in 2008 and 4 646 inspections in 2009. During these inspections 1 330 and 2 491 cases of inadequate detention conditions were identified in 2008 and 2009 respectively. As a result, on 1 998 and 1 335 occasions prosecutors ordered the administrations of remand prisons to comply with the domestic legislation within one month (predstavlenye prokurora). In 2008 and 2009 prosecutors brought respectively 52 and 168 court actions against the administrations of remand prisons to oblige them to comply with domestic legislation. Copies of the court decisions concerning actions brought by public prosecutors have been provided.

The Prosecutor General’s Office also carries out regular inspections of remand prisons. When the problem of poor detention conditions in a remand prison appears to be of a systemic character and to require investment, the Prosecutor General submits an order to comply with the requirements of domestic legislation to the Minister of Justice of Russia and the Director of the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences. During 2007-2009, 23 such orders were submitted. In 2009, public prosecutors received 43 748 complaints from detainees. No information is available on the number of complaints concerning poor detention conditions in remand prisons.

IV. Publication and dissemination

All judgments of the group have been published, mainly in the Konsultant database, and disseminated to the Supreme and the Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor General, the Federal Service for execution of sentences and the President’s Representatives in federal districts.

The judgments were disseminated to the lower courts by the Supreme Court, to the Heads of territorial departments by the Prosecutor General and to all territorial departments of the Federal Service for execution of sentences.

V. Conclusions

The government believes that the measures set out above demonstrate its determination and the sustained efforts made to improve the conditions of detention in remand prisons. The government will continue to take further measures to that effect and will keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the new developments.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

2 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

3 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

4 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

5 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

6 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

7 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

8 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

9 Recommendation Rec(2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2002)13 on the publication and dissemination in the Member States of the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2004)4 on the European Convention on Human Rights in university education and professional training; Recommendation Rec(2004)5 on the verification of the compatibility of draft laws, existing laws and administrative practice with the standards laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies; Recommendation Rec(2008)2 on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

10 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

11 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

12 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

13 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

14 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

15 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

16 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

17 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

18 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

19 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

20 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

21 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

22 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

23 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

24 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

25 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

26 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

27 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

28 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

29 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

30 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

31 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

32 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the1078.th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

33 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

34 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

35 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

36 The clearance rate, expressed as a percentage, is obtained when the number of resolved cases is divided by the number of incoming cases and the result is multiplied by 100. A clearance rate equal to 100% indicates the ability of the court or of a judicial system to resolve cases received within the given time period. A clearance rate above 100% indicates the ability of the system to resolve more cases than received, thus reducing any backlog. When a clearance rate goes below 100%, the received cases are not resolved within the given period and the number of unresolved cases at the end of the year (backlog) will rise.

37 The pending cases correspond to incoming cases which have not yet had a decision, either in the form of a judgment, sentence or order, at the judicial instance, irrespective of whether or not a final decision has been delivered. As such, they are cases that are waiting for certain acts or diligences to be carried our by the court or by other entities. They can also, in certain kinds of procedures, be cases that ere waiting for certain facts to take place or that are just waiting for certain timeframes to run out. A suspending case is, for example, a pending case, whatever the cause for suspension may be.

38 The clearance rate corresponds to the ratio between the total of completed cases and the total of incoming cases. If it is equal to 1, it means that the volume of incoming cases is equal to the volume of completed cases and that the fluctuation of the pendency is null. If it is higher than 1, it means that the pendency has been recovered. The higher this indicator is, the bigger shall be the recovery of the pendency in that year. If it is lower than 1, it means that the number of incoming cases has been higher than the number of completed cases and that, as such, case pendency has been generated for the following year.

39 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents