CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 26 septembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s954C670F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-13.65pt } .sF528EA14 { width:10.32pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s94826666 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-49.65pt } .s1B85EA9B { width:27.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD3D1773B { width:35.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s68ADC1C9 { width:10.87pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s4916455E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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)144 [1]   Kay et autres contre Royaume-Uni   Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 37341/06, arrêt du 21 septembre 2010, définitif le 21 décembre 2010)     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 la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2011)1162 ) [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 y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2011)1162 ) ;   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 Plan/Action Report and Updates Template   Name of Case Kay v UK (application no. 37341/06; judgment final on 21 December 2010) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 8th August 2011   Case Summary   1.   Case description: -   The applicants were occupiers of housing units owned by Lambeth borough council, which had originally sublet the accommodation to a charitable housing trust. Once Lambeth terminated the lease in November 1999, the occupiers became trespassers against the council. Lambeth then brought possession proceedings to evict them. The applicants were not permitted to raise their human rights as a defence to possession proceedings, and they complained that this breached their right to respect for private and home life under Article 8 (the right to a family life). They were unsuccessful before the domestic courts but the Strasbourg Court found a violation of Article 8, insofar as the applicants had been prevented from raising it as a defence.   Individual Measures   2.   Just satisfaction:   -   The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously supplied.   3.   Individual measures:   -   The Government considers no further individual measures are required because the violation of Article 8 was held to be in procedural aspects only.     -   We understand from Lambeth that the financing for the redevelopment of the block in which he was living has fallen through, and Mr Kay is still living there. There is therefore no need for further individual measures. Lambeth also said that Mr Kay and his family may be entitled to accommodation as a homeless family if the development goes ahead in the future. We consider that if any steps were taken to evict him, he would now be able to raise Article 8 rights as a defence following the decision in Pinnock.   General Measures   4.   Publication: -   The judgment has been published in:   -   Case Reports Times Law Reports (2010) Times, 18 October All England Law Reports [2010] All ER (D) 107 (Sep) New Law Journal [2010] NLJR 1346   -   Articles New Law Journal 160 NLJ 1638 26 November 2010 Public: Beating a path   -   New Law Journal 160 NLJ 1365 8 October 2010 Human rights / Housing: An ongoing saga     -   Law Society Gazette L.S.G. 2010, 107(41), 20-21. Local government (October) Nicholas Dobson   -   Practical Law Companies P.L.C. 2010, 21(10), 48-49. Possession proceedings: Article 8.   -   Property Law Journal P.L.J. 2010, 259, 6-10. Defences to possession proceedings. Clare Collier   -   Legal Action (2010) November Pages 29-33 Recent developments in public law: Part 1 (November)     5.   Dissemination: -   The Government considers it is unnecessary to disseminate the judgment because the recent Supreme Court decision in Manchester City Council v Pinnock clarifies the existing domestic law position; please see below. As the law has already changed, we consider that highlighting the previous legal position would be confusing.   -   The judgment in Pinnock has been covered extensively in the specialist housing press as well as the legal press. It is considered that any additional measures to draw attention to that judgment are unnecessary.   6.   Other general measures: -   The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because the Supreme Court decision in Manchester City Council v Pinnock, available at:   http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0180_Judgment.pdf   clarified the law in relation to possession proceedings. The Supreme Court in Pinnock invited written submissions on the effect of Kay v UK as the judgment was handed down after the oral hearing in Pinnock in July 2010. The decision in Pinnock has now modified the law as set out in the House of Lords decision in Kay v Lambeth.   -   Consistently with the judgment in Kay v UK, it holds that, in principle, any public sector occupier at risk of losing their home must have the opportunity to have the proportionality of that step considered by the county court. This consideration can include factors such as the occupier’s personal circumstances. This is a significant clarification of the law since Kay was before the House of Lords. As the Supreme Court’s decision sets a binding precedent for lower courts, the Department does not consider that any further steps are necessary to implement the judgment.   7.   -   The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 26 septembre 2012 lors de la 1150e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Uniquement en anglais