Ministers’ Deputies
Annotated Agenda

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2006)966Addendum 1 31 May 2006.1
———————————————

966th meeting (DH), 6-7 June 2006

Section 1

Final Resolutions

(no debate envisaged)

——————————————

Action
Section 1

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of the cases listed below, on the basis of the Rules concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Deputies might in particular wish to examine the draft Resolutions appended to the present Addendum, with a view to their adoption.

CONTENTS Page

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning four judgments delivered by the European Court concerning length of proceedings
before civil courts in the United Kingdom - case of Davies, judgment of 16 July 2002,
final on 16 October 2002 - case of Foley, judgment of 22 October 2002, final on 22 January 2003 -
case of Mitchell et Holloway, judgment of 17 December 2002, final on 21 May 2003 -
case of Price et Lowe, judgment of 29 July 2003, final on 3 December 2003
4

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning length of proceedings
concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts in the United Kingdom - case of Somjee,
judgment of 15 October 2002, final on 15 January 2003; - case of Obasa, judgment of 16 January 2003,
final on 16 April 2003
8

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 24 February 2005
(final on 24 May 2005) in the case of Nowicky against Austria
11

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 22 July 2003
(final on 22 October 2003) in the case of Sa Cabinet Diot and Sa Gras Savoye against France
12

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 16 April 2002 (final on 16 July 2002)
in the case of Sa Dangeville against France
13

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 April 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Vanpraet against Belgium
14

Resolution ResDH(2006)….
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 October 2004 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Koliha against the Czech Republic
15

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 11 January 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Netolický et Netolická against Czech Republic
16

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 May 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Parchanski against the Czech Republic
17

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 3 June 2003 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Susini and Others against France
18

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 31 March 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Viaropoulos and others against Greece
19

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 April 2004 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Balasoiu against Romania
21

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 February 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Constantin against Romania
22

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 February 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Roman and Hogea against Romania
23

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 February 2004 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Suciu against Romania
24

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 22 March 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Toimi against Sweden
25

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 27 February 2001 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Alpay against Turkey
26

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning four judgments delivered by the European Court concerning length of proceedings before civil courts in the United Kingdom
- case of Davies, judgment of 16 July 2002, final on 16 October 2002
- case of Foley, judgment of 22 October 2002, final on 22 January 2003
- case of Mitchell et Holloway, judgment of 17 December 2002, final on 21 May 2003
- case of Price et Lowe, judgment of 29 July 2003, final on 3 December 2003

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …June 2006,
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in these four case (see Appendix) and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that these cases originated in applications lodged against the United Kingdom (see details in the Appendix) with the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 of the Convention and that the European Court of Human Rights, seised of the cases under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicants’ complaints that the proceedings in which they had been involved before civil courts were excessively lengthy;

Recalling that in all theses cases the Court held:

- that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

- that the United Kingdom had to pay the applicants certain amounts in just satisfaction (see details in Appendix);

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

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following the judgments of the Court, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found by the European Court in the present cases; this information appears in the Appendix to this Resolution;

Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums awarded by the Court’s judgments (see Appendix) and noting that all proceedings had ended at the time the Court rendered its judgments so that no question of their acceleration has been raised;

Having also noted with interest the efforts under way to secure an effective remedy in all cases of excessively lengthy proceedings, taking particularly into account the Committee’s Recommendation to member States Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies,

Declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 46 of the Convention in these cases.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)…

Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination by the Committee of Ministers

of the cases o: Davies; Foley; Mitchell and Holloway; Price and Lowe

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

Cases

Application

Judgment

Just satisfaction

Payment deadline

Date of Payment

Default interest due

Vernon John Davies

42007/98

16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002, rectified on 03/09/2002

Non-pecuniary damages: 4 500 euros;
Costs and expenses : 10 000 British pounds

16/01/2003

24/01/2003

Waived by applicant

Patrick Grattan Foley

39197/98

22/10/2002 final on 22/01/2003

Non-pecuniary damages: 4 000 euros;
Costs and expenses: 500 euros

22/04/2003

17/03/2003

None

Geoffrey Mitchell and Louis Holloway

44808/98

17/12/2002final on 21/05/2003

Non-pecuniary damages: 5 000 euros;
Costs and expenses: 15 000 euros

21/08/2003

15/08/2003

None

John Harding Price and Mary Hazel Lowe

43185/98 43186/98

29/07/2003 final on 03/12/2003

Non-pecuniary damages: 1 000 euros to each applicant;
Costs and expenses: 500 euros to each applicant

03/03/2004

23/02/2004

None

All proceedings had ended at the time of delivery of these judgments by the European Court. No claim for individual measures was submitted.

II. General measures

The United Kingdom Government recalls that the facts in these cases relate to excessively lengthy proceedings before civil courts in England from July 1984 to April 1999.

II.1 Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgments

The European Court’s judgments in the cases of Mitchell and Holloway and Price and Lowe have been sent out to the relevant court administrations. In addition, the European Court’s judgment in the case of Davies has been published at (2002) 35 European Human Rights Reports (EHRR) 29; the judgment in the case of Mitchell and Holloway has been published at (2003) 36 EHRR 52. The judgment in the case of Price and Lowe has been published on the JUSTIS website (www.justis.com), one of the leading UK websites used by the legal profession.

II.2 Adoption of new legislation aimed at accelerating civil proceedings

On 26 April 1999 the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) came into force. According to Rule 1.1 of the CPR, the overriding objective of the new civil procedure rules is to enable courts to deal with cases justly. Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable:

    (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
    (b) saving expense;
    (c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

      (i) to the amount of money involved;
      (ii) to the importance of the case;
      (iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
      (iv) to the financial position of each party;

    (d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
    (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

The major changes introduced by the CPR are the following:

Pre-action settlement in order to avoid litigation

The new procedural code contains important rules applying to the pre-action stage (i.e. before the issue of proceedings), called the Pre-Action Protocols. Failure to comply with these Protocols may result in the imposition of sanctions in any subsequent litigation. Their purpose is to promote settlement without recourse to litigation and to ensure that where litigation does ensue, the case is better prepared and the key issues identified from the outset.

New case-tracking system

Cases are now allocated to one of three tracks. Allocation takes place shortly after a defence has been filed. The three tracks are:

    · Small claims track - claims of no more than £5000, which are to be dealt with quickly and informally, often without the need for legal representation or a full hearing.
    · Fast track - claims of between £5000 and £15 000, which are subject to a simplified Court procedure and a fixed timetable designed to enable the claim to be determined within 30 weeks.
    · Multi-track - claims of £15 000 or more which are to be managed by the courts. In these cases, the court and the parties are required to agree a bespoke timetable for the resolution of the case and to ensure that the litigation is appropriately managed through case-management conferences.

Introduction of active case-management by courts

After allocation, courts now give directions setting out the procedures to be followed in bringing cases to trial.

In most cases these directions are given at a case-management conference which must be held soon after track allocation. A procedural judge reviews the case thoroughly (including the likely cost of the litigation) with the lawyers involved and decides what needs to be done to bring the case to trial, what factual evidence is required and whether any expert evidence is necessary. A timetable is fixed providing deadlines by which the necessary action must be taken.

In some cases a representative of the clients is expected to attend this meeting, particularly if there is a prospect that the court will wish to encourage the parties to explore settlement possibilities, for example, by using mediation techniques. That person will have to be familiar with the case and possess sufficient authority to deal with any issues which are likely to arise.

Most importantly, the court may also fix a provisional date for the trial. This leads to hearings taking place much more quickly than before.

Systems are in place to enable the courts to monitor progress after fixing trial dates and the court will convene a further meeting if progress does not match expectations. Sanctions may be imposed on parties responsible for any delay.

II.3 Evaluation of and follow-up to the legislative reforms

The CPR have radically changed and accelerated proceedings before civil courts in England and Wales. In 2004, the period between allocation to a track and trial was less than 15 weeks in 84 % of all small- track cases, less than 30 weeks in 80 % of fast-track cases and less than 50 weeks in 75 % of multi-track cases. The positive effects of the CPR are also attested to by the fact that no similar cases have been brought before the European Court since the entry into force of the CPR.

The stewardship of the CPR rests with a “standing committee” of senior judges, lawyers and representatives from relevant consumer and voluntary sector organisations. Following appropriate consultation, it is this committee whch approves changes to the code. In addition, a policy division of the Department for Constitutional Affairs keeps civil procedure policy under constant review and both responds to and initiates new policy proposals. Ideas for new ways of improving civil procedure are collected from a wide range of sources – from practitioners, from organisations with an interest in civil justice, from the judiciary and from within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Such ideas also include ensuring that an effective remedy exists in cases of excessively lengthy proceedings. In this context, the United Kingdom authorities are bearing in mind in particular the Committee’s Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies.

III. Conclusion

The Government of the United Kingdom considers, in view of the measures taken, that the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases have been remedied and that the United Kingdom has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

Section 1.1

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts in the United Kingdom
- case of Somjee, judgment of 15 October 2002, final on 15 January 2003;
- case of Obasa, judgment of 16 January 2003, final on 16 April 2003

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …June 2006,
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the above two cases against the United Kingdom and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that these cases originated in applications lodged against the United Kingdom (see details in the Appendix) with the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 of the Convention or the European Court for Human Rights under Article 35, and that the Court, seised of the cases under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicants’ complaints that the proceedings in which they had been involved before labour courts were excessively lengthy;

Recalling that the Court in both cases held unanimously:

- that there had been, a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

- that the United Kingdom had to pay the applicants certain amounts in just satisfaction (see details in Appendix);

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

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following the judgments of the Court, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found by the European Court in the present cases; this information appears in the Appendix to this Resolution;

Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums awarded by the Court’s judgments (see Appendix) and noting that all proceedings had ended at the time the Court rendered its judgments so that no question of their acceleration has been raised;

Having also noted with interest the other measures taken and the efforts under way to secure an effective remedy in all cases of excessively lengthy proceedings, taking particularly into account the Committee’s Recommendation to member States Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies;

Declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 46 of the Convention in these cases.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)…

Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination by the Committee of Ministers

of the cases of Somjee and Obasa

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

Cases

Application

Judgment

Just satisfaction

Payment deadline

Date of Payment

Shehnaz Somjee

42116/98

15/10/2002, final on 15/01/2003

Non-pecuniary damages: 5 000 euros;
Costs and expenses : 2 500 euros

15/04/2003

01/04/2003

Olubukunola Obasa

50034/99

16/01/2003, final on 16/04/2003

Non-pecuniary damages: 5 000 euros;
Costs and expenses: 5 000 euros

16/07/2003

04/07/2003

All proceedings had ended at the time of delivery of the present judgments by the European Court. No claim for individual measures was submitted.

II. General measures

The United Kingdom government recalls that the facts in these cases relate to excessively lengthy proceedings before Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England from October 1988 to April 1999.

Following the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the government adopted major regulatory measures and reinforced human resources to prevent similar violations, as follows:

II.1 Regulatory measures

(a) Internal procedural changes were introduced by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) at the end of 2002 to accelerate proceedings. As a consequence, the waiting time for cases has been reduced: the average waiting time in 2004 was less than 3 months.

(b) On 1 October 2004 the revised Employment Tribunals Regulations (Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1861, http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041861.htm) entered into force, introducing case- management discussions and greater case-management powers for Chairpersons of the Employment Tribunals. In addition, Chairpersons are now empowered to deliver default judgments in uncontested cases. Applications for review of default judgments must now be reasoned, and made within 14 days following notification of the judgment to the parties.

In this context, it should also be noted that monthly exception reports on all stays in the EAT are produced and checked to prevent similar violations to those found in these cases. Moreover, in 2004 the Employment Tribunals Service continued to meet the key performance targets agreed with Ministers for hearing applications.

II.2 Reinforcement of human resources

Since 2002 the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has been reinforced with seven more judges and may now sit throughout the year. In addition, six more recorders have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to the EAT since 2000.

In conclusion, these general measures have accelerated proceedings before Employments Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England and Wales. Their positive effects are attested to by the fact that no cases similar to the present ones have been brought before the European Court.

It is also noted that future improvements will include ensuring that an effective remedy also exists in cases of excessively lengthy proceedings. In this context, the United Kingdom authorities are bearing in mind in particular the Committee’s Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies.

II.3 Publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgments

The Somjee judgment has been published at (2003) 36 European Human Rights Reports 16 and sent out to Employment Tribunals and to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The Obasa judgment has been published on the Justis website (www.justis.com) which is one of the leading UK websites used by the legal profession.

III. Conclusion

The Government of the United Kingdom considers, in view of the measures taken, that the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases have been remedied and that the United Kingdom has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 21, of the Convention.

Section 1.2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 24 February 2005 (final on 24 May 2005)
in the case of Nowicky against Austria

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …June 2006,
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Nowicky case delivered on 24 February 2005 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 34983/02) against Austria, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 March 2002 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr W.  Nowicky, an Austrian national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint concerning the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil right and obligations before the administrative court;

Whereas in its judgment of 24 February 2005 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 1 500 euros in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, plus any amount that may be chargeable for tax;

- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;

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

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 24 February 2005, having regard to Austria obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind (see Final Resolution DH(2004)77) in the G.S. case against Austria), in particular through the entry into force on 20 April 2002 of Administrative Reform Act 2001, which aims to alleviate the case-load of the Administrative Court and accelerate administrative proceedings as well as the adoption of legal measures to prevent the Administrative Court from being overburdened by clone cases; the government also indicated that the Court's judgment had been published in the Official Law Gazette and sent out to the authorities directly concerned;

Having satisfied itself that on 24 May 2005, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 24 February 2005,

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

Section 1.3

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 22 July 2003 (final on 22 October 2003)
in the case of SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …June 2006,
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye delivered on 22 July 2003 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in two applications (Nos. 49217/99 and 49218/99) against France, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 and 11 May 1999 under Article 34 of the Convention by two limited French companies, SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint concerning an infringement of the applicant companies' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions;

Whereas in its judgment of 22 July 2003 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the companies’, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 102 807,50 euros to the limited company Cabinet Diot and 275 991,57 euros to the limited company Gras Savoye in respect of pecuniary damages as well as 15 244,90 euros to each companies in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;

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

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 22 July 2003, having regard to France obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state indicated that the Court’s judgment had been published on the official web site “Legifrance” and transmitted to the authorities concerned;

Having satisfied itself after the expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant companies the sums provided for in the judgment of 22 July 2003 as well as the default interest due,

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

Section 1.3

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 16 April 2002 (final on 16 July 2002)
in the case of SA Dangeville against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the SA Dangeville case delivered on 16 April 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 36677/97) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 March 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by a French limited company, SA Dangeville and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning an infringement of the applicant company's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.

Whereas in its judgment of 16 April 2002 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;

- held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with the Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;

- held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non pecuniary damage;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 21 734,49 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, 21 190,41 euros in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 4,26% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;

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

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 16 April 2002, having regard to France obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state indicated that the Court’s judgment had been published on the official web site “Legifrance” and transmitted to the authorities concerned;

Having satisfied itself that on 11 October 2002, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 16 April 2002,

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 21 April 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Vanpraet against Belgium

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Vanpraet case delivered on 21 April 2005 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 47153/99) against Belgium, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 August 1998 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Georges Vanpraet, a Belgian national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint related to the length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Conseil d'Etat;

Whereas in its judgment of 21 April 2005 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Belgium would pay the applicant, the sum of 4 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary, pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment and that simple interest would be payable on the sum at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 3 June 2005 within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)….
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 26 October 2004 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Koliha against the Czech Republic

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Koliha case delivered on 26 October 2004 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 52863/99) against the Czech Republic, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 September 1999 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Zdeněk Koliha, a Czech Republic national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings;

Whereas in its judgment of 26 October 2004 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of the Czech Republic would pay the applicant, the sum of 2 200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary, pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment and that simple interest would be payable on the sum at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 26 January 2005 within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 11 January 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Netolický et Netolická against Czech Republic

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on .. June 2006,
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Netolický and Netolická delivered on 11 January 2005 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 55727/00) against Czech Republic, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 December 1999 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Jaromír Netolický et Ms Františka Netolická, Czech nationals, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint relating to the deprivation of their property on the basis of a questionable interpretation of law and not in the public interest;

Whereas in its judgment of 11 January 2005 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of the Czech Republic would pay the applicants, the sum of 240 000 Czech crowns for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses, within three months from the date of notification of the judgment by the Court and that that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on the 1st April 2005, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sum provided for in the friendly and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment;

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 17 May 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Parchanski against the Czech Republic

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Parchanski case delivered on 17 May 2005 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 7356/02) against the Czech Republic, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 February 2002 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Vitězslav Parchanski, a Czech Republic national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint related to the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings;

Whereas in its judgment of 17 May 2005 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of the Czech Republic would pay the applicant, the sum of 7 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary, pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses within three months as from the delivery of the judgment and that simple interest would be payable on the sum at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 5 August 2005 within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 3 June 2003 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Susini and others against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Susini and others delivered on 3 June 2003 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 43716/98) against France, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 March 1998 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mrs Agathe Susini, Véronique Susini, Anne-Marie Calzarelli, Marie Sueur and Mr Roger Susini, Mathias Ortiz and Charles Susini, seven French nationals, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints concerning the length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages, as well as the lack of effective remedies to determine such a complaint;

Whereas in its judgment of 3 June 2003 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of France would pay each applicant, the sum of 2 300 euros in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and 5 328,18 euros in respect of costs and expenses to Mrs Ortiz, the widow of Mr Susini, within three months as from the delivery of the judgment and that simple interest would be payable on the sum at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points from the expiry of the above-mentioned thirty days until settlement;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 12 January 2004, after the expiry of the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement as well as the default interest due and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 31 March 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Viaropoulos and others against Greece

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on ..
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Viaropoulos and others delivered on 31 March 2005 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 19437/02) against Greece, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on the 1 May 2002 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Lambros Viaropoulos, Ms Eleni Viaropoulou, Mr Panayotis Viaropoulos and Ms Irini Viaropoulou, Greek nationals, and that the Court declared admissible the complaints relating to the excessive length of certain civil proceedings pertaining to the applicants' claims for compensation following expropriation of their land and a breach to their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions;

Whereas in its judgment of 31 March 2005 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having found no reason of public policy justifying the continuation of the proceedings, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Greece would pay the applicants, the global sum of 910 792 euros, within three months from the date of notification of the judgment by the Court and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

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

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

Having regard to the general measures adopted by Greece for the acceleration of civil proceedings (see Resolution ResDH(2005)64 on Academy Trading Ltd and others and other cases, 18 July 2005), as well as the general measures also adopted with a view to preventing violations of individual land property rights in the context of land expropriation proceedings (see e.g. relevant information provided by Greece in the context of current examination by the Committee of the Tsirikakis (judgment of 17 January 2002) group of cases);

Having satisfied itself that on 16 June 2005, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment;

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 20 April 2004 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Bălăşoiu against Romania

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Balasoiu case delivered on 20 April 2004 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 37424/97) against Romania, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 December 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Georgeta Bălăşoiu, a Romanian national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that the investigation into her allegations of ill treatment by the police had not been effective and that the criminal proceedings which she had joined as a civil party had been excessively lengthy;

Whereas in its judgment of 20 April 2004 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Romania would pay the applicant, the sum of 8 500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary, pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment and that simple interest would be payable on the sum at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 2 July 2004, within time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 17 February 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Constantin against Romania

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Constantin case delivered on 17 February 2005 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 49145/99) against Romania, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 May 1999 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Viorel Constantin, a Romanian national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaints concerning ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on the applicant by the police in April 1995, as well as the alleged unavailability of an effective remedy to obtain compensation for the damage suffered;

Whereas in its judgment of 17 February 2005 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Romania would pay the applicant, the sum of 23 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary, pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, within three months as from the delivery of the judgment and that simple interest would be payable on the sum at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points from the expiry of the above-mentioned thirty days until settlement;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 13 May 2005 within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 17 February 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Roman and Hogea against Romania

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers ..,
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Roman and Hogea delivered on 17 February 2005 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 62959/00) against Romania, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 June 2000 under Article 34 of the Convention by Ms Maria Roman and Ms Ioana Hogea, Romanian nationals, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint relating to the non-enforcement of judicial decisions ordering the reintegration of the applicants in their posts;

Whereas in its judgment of 17 February 2005 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Romania would pay the applicants, the global sum of 17 000 euros for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses, within three months from the date of notification of the judgment by the Court and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 13 May 2005, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sum provided for in the friendly and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment;

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 10 February 2004 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Suciu against Romania

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Suciu case delivered on 10 February 2004 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 49009/99) against Romania, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 February 1999 under Article 34 of the Convention by Ms Elena Suciu, a Romanian national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint concerning the annulment of a property sale, she could not obtain in 1998 reimbursement in full of the amount she had originally paid, because of the considerable loss of value of the national currency between 1991 and 1998 ;

Whereas in its judgment of 10 February 2004 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Romania would pay the applicant, the sum of 5 830 euros in respect of non-pecuniary, pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, within thirty days as from the delivery of the judgment, and that simple interest would be payable on the sum at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points from the expiry of the above-mentioned thirty days until settlement;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 3 March 2004, within time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 22 March 2005 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Toimi against Sweden

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on ..
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Toimi case delivered on 22 March 2005 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 55164/00) against Sweden, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 September 1999 under Article 34 of the Convention by Ms Ritva Toimi, a Finnish national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaints relating to the lack of effective access to a court and the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning the applicant’s pension rights;

Whereas in its judgment of 22 March 2005 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Sweden would pay the applicant, the sum of 65 000 Swedish crowns, upon notification of the judgment by the Court;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 6 April 2005, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment;

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

Section 1.4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2006)…
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 27 February 2001 (Friendly settlement)
in the case of Alpay against Turkey

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on ..
at the 966th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Alpay case delivered on 27 February 2001 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 30947/96) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 December 1995 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Ali Alpay, a Turkish national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the violation of the applicants’ right to respect for his property on account of the administration’s delay in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the difference between the applicable rate of default interest and the average rate of inflation;

Whereas in its judgment of 27 February 2001 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Turkey would pay the applicant, the sum of 75 000 American dollars for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses immediately upon notification of the judgment;

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

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

Having satisfied itself that on 25 May 2001, the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the friendly and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment;

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

Note 1 This document has been classified restricted at the date of issue. Unless the Committee of Ministers decides otherwise, it will be declassified according to the rules set up in Resolution Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents.


 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents