CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 juin 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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s97D52449 { width:7.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s494CFCFF { font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4DF923C { text-align:justify; list-style-position:inside } .sA42D2AAA { width:7.96pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .sB6FF9115 { width:4.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DB9EB2 { font-family:'Times New Roman' } .sADEDA2F2 { width:32.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD3AE3CC3 { width:29.77pt; display:inline-block } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s919E91DC { width:32.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; 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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)108 [1]   Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme MacKay et BBC Scotland contre le Royaume-Uni   (Requête n o 10734/05, arrêt du 7 décembre 2010, définitif le 7 mars 2011)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et les violations constatées (voir document DH-DD(2011)845 ) [2] ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -      de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -      de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (voir document DH-DD(2011)845 ) ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées   ;   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Action Report   Mackay and BBC Scotland v The United Kingdom (Application No. 10734/05; judgement final on 07/03/2011) Information submitted by the Scottish Government on 10 October 2011   Case summary        Case description: -   This case concerned the applicants’ inability to challenge a court order which imposed reporting restrictions in a criminal trial in Scotland. The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicants were unable to formally challenge this order, as the procedure for challenge was informal and did not include the requisite safeguards, which the ECHR noted are particularly important in the context of freedom of expression. -   The ECHR found this to be in breach of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10 - Lack of an effective remedy and freedom of expression and information. -   The Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No. 3) (Miscellaneous) 2011 came into force on 28 March 2011, section 6 of which amended Chapter 56 of the Criminal Court Rules to implement the terms of the courts decision.   Individual Measures      Just satisfaction : -   No just satisfaction was claimed or awarded.      Other individual measures : -                       The Government considers no further individual measures are necessary because legislative measures have been put in place to provide an effective procedural remedy to the situation which had subsisted previously as an informal procedure. These measures will safeguard applicants’ rights under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10. -                       The order about which the applicants complained   had   been   recalled by the domestic court on 21 June 2005.   General Measures      Publication : -   The judgment has been published in the following law reports, legal journals and newspapers.   Law Reports 2010 All ER (D) 267 (Dec)   Legal Databases Bailii - http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1968.html   Case analysis on Westlaw.   Lexis - All England Report above.   Scottish Legal Information Centre (SLIC) - Issue 49 mentions the judgment and Issue 1 of 2011 has a link to commentary on the judgment.   http://sa45eda/sgld/slic/Wiki%20Pages/Human%20Rights%20Bulletins.aspx   Newspapers Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/human-rights-court-rules-on- reporting-2153691.html   Scotsman, http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Scottish-courts-are-not-protecting.6652809.jp   Herald, http://breakingnews.heraldscotland.com/breakingnews/mode=article&site=hs&id=N0012681291730721522A   Times, 4 January 2011      Dissemination :   -           The judgment has been disseminated to Michael Anderson, Legal Secretary to the Lord President, Court of Session, Edinburgh, who has made the judges and senior officials of the Court aware of the judgment; and to the Scottish Court Service, an independent statutory body responsible for providing the staff, buildings and technology to support Scotland’s courts and the work of the independent judiciary. It has also been disseminated to the Rules Council membership of which includes the judiciary, Scottish Court Service, Crown Office, Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.      General measures :   -                       The Government has taken the following general measures. The Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No. 3) (Miscellaneous) 2011 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/194/contents/made ) came into force on 28 March 2011, section 6 of which amended Chapter 56 of the Criminal Court Rules to implement the terms of the decision. -                       The   instrument   puts the previous   administrative arrangements into a legally binding form. This means that the   court   is required to take certain steps to communicate the existence of section 4(2) orders (which ban reporting) and that there is a procedure for the making by aggrieved parties of applications for the revocation or variation of such orders. Such applications are determined following a hearing which will, ordinarily, take place within 48 hours of the making of the application and be before the judge who made the order.      - The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.       [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2012 lors de la 1144e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Document en anglais uniquement