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 } .s406A638D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-10.35pt } .s97D52449 { width:7.02pt; 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 } .s494CFCFF { font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s88197D51 { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s47BB67E2 { font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; 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)230 [1] Hanif et Kahn contre Royaume-Uni Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 52999/08, arrêt du 20 décembre 2011, définitif le 20 mars 2012)     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)888E )   ;   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)888E )   ;   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]   Case of Hanif and Khan v The United Kingdom (Applications no. 52999/08 and 61779/08); judgment final on 20 March 2012. Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 20 September 2012   Case Summary   1.   Case description:   The case concerns two individuals convicted of drug-related offences. During the trial, a   member of the jury informed the judge that he was a serving police officer, and that he knew one of the police officers giving evidence although he had not worked with him in the last two years. Defence counsel applied to have the juror discharged on the grounds that there was a conflict of evidence between the police and the first applicant which the jury would have to resolve, and that it was therefore unfair for the jury to include a police officer. The trial judge dismissed the application.     The Court found unanimously on the facts that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in respect of both applicants.   Individual Measures   2.   Just satisfaction : The just satisfaction awards of €4,500 to the first applicant and €2,000 to the second applicant have been paid and evidence supplied.                   Individual measures: The Government considers no further individual measures are required. It is open to   the applicants to make applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for review of their cases.   General Measures   1.   General measures : The Government also considers no general measures to be necessary. The UK courts already have the power to discharge a juror. Should a similar case arise again, the UK courts would be obliged by section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to take into account the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this case when considering whether to exercise that power.   The European Court of Human Rights expressly noted at paragraph 145 that it was not assessing the extent to which the legislation permitting police officers to participate in jury service in England and Wales complies with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the Convention, but only whether in the circumstances of the applicants’ case, there had been a breach of Article 6(1).   2.   Publication : The judgment has been published in the following location:   The British and Irish Legal Information Institute website at http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2247.html   3.   Dissemination: The Government considers it unnecessary to further disseminate the judgment because the case is confined to its own specific facts and does not give rise to any policy changes.   4.   State of execution of judgment The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that 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.