CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 septembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s266AE78A { height:13.6pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s172CB0A7 { height:14.45pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)135 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Prencipe against the Principality of Monaco   (Application No. 43376/06, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009)     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 excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention (violation of Article 5 paragraph 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;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided for 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(2011)135   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Prencipe against the Principality of Monaco     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the excessive duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention: from 7/01/2004 to 13/12/2007 (approximately 4 years, of which 2 fall under the European Court’s jurisdiction [2] ). The European Court (§87 of the judgment) found that the grounds for the length of the applicant’s detention, while relevant, had been insufficient in the circumstances as the initial relevance had not withstood the test of time (violation of Article 5§3).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 6   000 EUR - 6   000 EUR Paid on 30/10/2009   b) Individual measures   The applicant was released on 13/12/2007. The European Court, finding that the applicant had undeniably suffered as a result of the excessive length of her pre-trial detention, awarded her just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   With a view to making the judicial authorities aware of the need to take account of the principles of the Convention and the case law of the European Court with regard to pre-trial detention, the judgment was published and widely disseminated to the relevant courts. The Monegasque authorities have indicated that the relevant judicial authorities, which are responsible for the direct application of the Convention, are giving particular attention to this problem. The authorities pointed out that Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was modified by Law No.   1343 of 26/12/2007, which limits the duration of pre-trial detention. With a view to guaranteeing the effectiveness of these legislative changes in practice,, statistics have been drawn up showing the number of people held in pre-trial detention in any one year and the duration of their pre-trial detention, during the period of three years since he adoption of the law. In 2008, 37 people were held in pre-trial detention for an average duration of approximately four months. In 2009, 29   people were held in pre-trial detention for an average duration of approximately three months. Finally in 2010, 15 people were held in pre-trial detention for an average duration of approximately two months. There has therefore been a gradual but clear drop in the number of people held in pre-trial detention and in the average duration of such detention. According to the authorities, this data proves the effectiveness of the new provisions concerning the duration of pre-trial detention.       III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Principality of Monaco has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies [2] See §72 of the judgment: The Court notes that the applicant’s pre-trial detention began on 7   January 2004, the date on which she was charged and taken into custody, and ended on 13 December 2007, the date on which she was released.   Her detention therefore lasted almost four years.   The period preceding 30 November 2005, the date on which the Convention came into force in respect of Monaco, does not fall under the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis . Consequently, the Court must restrict its examination to the period of two years and thirteen days between 30   November 2005 and 13 December 2007. Nevertheless the Court must take account of the fact that, at that date, the applicant, who had been taken into custody on 7 January 2004, had already been in custody for almost 2 years.