CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 décembre 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 } .s98626698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s88197D51 { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD7042CE7 { width:20.01pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBE30FE25 { text-align:justify; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sB6FF9115 { width:4.66pt; 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)228 [1] A.A contre Royaume-Uni Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 8000/08, arrêt du 20 septembre 2011, définitif le 20 décembre 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 la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)889E )   ;   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(2012)889E )   ;   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 [2]   Name of Case – AA v The United Kingdom (application no. 8000/08); judgment final on 19/12/2011) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 3 May 2012   Case Summary   1.   Case description:   -           The case involved a 25 year old Nigerian national, AA, who was convicted of rape on 27   September 2002, aged 15. He was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl, and sentenced to four years in a Young Offenders Institution (YOI). He did not appeal against his sentence or conviction. On 7 July 2003, whilst in detention, AA was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) following an application made by his mother on behalf of her dependents, including AA. A notice of intention of deportation was issued to AA on 8 September 2003. The case was pursued until his appeal rights against the decision to deport were exhausted on 25 January 2008. AA made an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 15 February 2008.   -           AA argued that his deportation constitutes a violation of his right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). AA was born in Nigeria   in 1986 and arrived in the UK with valid entry clearance to join his mother when he was 13 years old.   -           The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR on private life grounds because AA has made commendable efforts to rehabilitate himself over a seven year period and that, in these circumstances, the UK Government would be required to provide further support for the contention that AA would cause future disorder or engage in criminal activities such as to render his deportation necessary. It was determined that no evidence was put forward by the UK Government to support such a contention.   Individual Measures      Just satisfaction:   -           AA made no claim for damages as part of just satisfaction and so no amount was awarded. However the Court awarded the sum of EUR 4,000 for legal costs and expenses. This has been paid, evidence supplied.      Individual measures:   -           The Government has taken the following individual measures. Deportation action is no longer being pursued. As the appellant has previously been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the United Kingdom, he will retain that status. -           The Government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.   General Measures      General measures:   -           The Government considers no general measures to be necessary because the Court held that the interference with Article 8 was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime. The specific facts of the case led the Court to conclude that deportation to Nigeria would be disproportionate to the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime.      Publication:   -           The judgment has been published in, a number of sources which includes the following:   A.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 8000/08 [2011] ECHR 1345 (20 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1345.html   1 COR – One Crown Office Row- Human Rights & Public Law Update A.A v United Kingdom- 8000/08 [2011] ECHR 1345 Rosalind English 21 September 2011: http://www.1cor.com/1315/?form_1155.replyids=1441   Immigration Law Bulletin- Issue 245-26 September 2011- Published Monday, 26 September 2011: http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/bulletins/category/bulletin_detail.cfm?iBulletinID=655        Dissemination:   -           The Government considers it unnecessary to disseminate the judgment because the case is confined to its own specific facts and does not give rise to any policy changes.      State of execution of judgment:   -           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 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] En anglais uniquement.