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 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .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 } .s68ADC1C9 { width:10.87pt; 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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012) 145 [1]   McCann contre Royaume-Uni   Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 19009/04, arrêt du 13 mai 2008, définitif le 13 août 2008)     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)1161 ) [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)1161 );   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 McCann v United Kingdom (application no. 19009/04; judgment final on 13 May 2008) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 8th August 2008   Case Summary   1.   Case description: -   This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home following his eviction in 2005, pursuant to the service of a common law ‘notice to quit’, without the possibility to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal   -   The Court that the lack of adequate procedural safeguards resulted in a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (§55).   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 necessary in light of the Court finding an Article 8 violation in its procedural aspect only, and its observation that “it is far from clear whether a domestic tribunal in a position to assess the proportionality of the eviction would not still have granted the order” (§59).   General Measures   4.   Publication: -   The judgment of the European Court was widely published, for example [2008] All ER (D) 146 (May); [2008] Fam. Law 729; Times, 23 May 2008. Furthermore, several articles and case comments have been published with respect to the judgment.   5.   Dissemination: -   Given the substantial commentary on the judgment, the Government does not consider it necessary to disseminate it to local authorities.   6.   Other general measures:   -   The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because the outstanding ECHR issues were clarified by the UK Supreme Court in the case of Pinnock v Manchester City Council , in which the Department intervened. Judgment in Pinnock was given on 3rd November 2010.   -   Pinnock clarified the law in relation to possession proceedings. The Justices also 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. Pinnock has now modified the law as set out in the House of Lords decision in Kay v Lambeth. It also takes into account the McCann decision. 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.   -   Pinnock analyses the Strasbourg jurisprudence from para 30 of the judgment, and expressly considers McCann at para 35. Pinnock marks a significant clarification of the law since the McCann case was before the ECtHR. 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