CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 mars 2012

.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 } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8D9AE249 { margin-left:14.75pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4D0A3DE4 { margin-left:63.05pt; widows:0; orphans:0; padding-left:8.25pt; font-family:serif } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s65C12FFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt } .s1B85EA9B { width:27.11pt; text-indent:0pt; 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(2012)64 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Allen against the United Kingdom     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”) [2] ,   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;   Case name (App. No.) Judgment of Final on Allen (18837/06) 30/03/2010 30/06/2010   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 as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;   Having invited the authorities of the respondent State to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;   Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH ‑ DD(2012)59E );   Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;     DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.     Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action Plan/Action Report and Updates Template   Case of Allen v The United Kingdom (Application no. 18837/06; judgment final on 30 June 2010) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 13 October 2011     Case Summary   1.   Case description: - The case concerned a violation of the applicant’s right to test the lawfulness of her detention before a court, due to the refusal, in October 2005, of a request by her counsel for the applicant to be present at the hearing of an appeal filed by the prosecutor against a previous judicial decision granting her bail. - The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5§4.   Individual Measures   2.   Just satisfaction: - The just satisfaction award of €1,000 has been paid, as converted to pounds sterling; evidence previously submitted.   3.   Other individual measures: - The Government considers no further individual measures are required as just satisfaction has been paid. The applicant is no longer held on remand.   General Measures   4.   General measures:   - The Government has taken the following general measures:   - England and Wales   An amendment has been made to Criminal Procedure Rule 19(17) which governs the right of the defendant to be present at the hearing of a prosecution appeal to the Crown Court against the grant of bail made in a magistrates’ court. The amendment comes into force on 4 October 2010. See paragraph 8 of the document in this link http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/pdf/uksi_20101921_en.pdf   The amendment to the Rule has been disseminated to court staff in England and Wales through internal guidance   The amendment to the Rule has been disseminated to Crown Prosecutors in England and Wales through internal guidance   - Scotland The Scottish Government reports that the following measures have been taken:   On 24 November 2010, the Lord Justice General passed an Act of Adjournal amending the Criminal Procedure Rules to grant the accused an express right to attend Crown bail appeal hearings. The Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No. 4) (Miscellaneous) 2010 came into force on 13 December 2010. The amendment to the Rules has been disseminated to court staff.   - Northern Ireland In Northern Ireland, the current practice is that defendants are routinely present (often by means of live video link) for the hearing of prosecution appeals against the grant of bail in the High Court. Additionally, a guidance document was issued in June 2010 to all judges with a criminal jurisdiction. That document contains a specific note on the implications of Allen v UK and a link to the full transcript of the judgment. The judgment has also been distributed to prosecutors.   5.   Publication:   - The judgment has been publicised in the following locations:   The British and Irish Legal Information Institute website at http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/420.html   The UK Human Rights Blog website at http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/04/01/accused-should-have-been-allowed-to-attend-appeal-against-the-grant-of-her-bail/   Criminal Law and Justice Weekly publication at http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/index.php?/Analysis/appeals-from-grants-of-bail.html   Blackstone’s Criminal Practice Bulletin (at page 3 of the document) at http://www.oup.com/uk/booksites/content/9780199574247/jul10_bulletin   6.   Dissemination:   - The Government considers it is unnecessary to disseminate the judgment any further.   7.   - The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the case should be closed.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. [2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies.