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 } .sF057D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .s935F9015 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sB217F55B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:6pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBE30FE25 { text-align:justify; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDDB50A14 { color:#ff0000 } .s5FFF0A74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:6pt } .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)232 [1] Minshall contre Royaume-Uni Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 7350/06, 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)936E )   ;   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)936E )   ;   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]   Minshall v the United Kingdom (application no 7350/06/ judgment final on 20/03/2012) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 20 September   Case Summary   -           This case concerns the excessive length of confiscation proceedings, which began in February 2000 following the applicant’s Robert John Minshall’s conviction of conspiracy to evade excise duty on alcoholic liquor. He complained that the ensuing confiscation proceedings against him which concluded in February 2006, were excessively long and in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). -           The European Court of Human Rights found the UK in violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceeding) with regard to delay waiting for a judgment from the House of Lords and awarded just satisfaction of EUR 2,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage).   Individual Measures   1.   Just satisfaction : The just satisfaction award has been paid; and evidence has been supplied.                   Individual measures: The Government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.   General Measures                   General measures: The Supreme Court came into existence on 1 October 2009; it took over the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and now hears these final appeals. Research has showed that the length of time proceedings took in the House of Lords was in some cases extensive. The Supreme Court has taken a number of measures to prevent such delays from arising. For instance, The Rules of Court and Practice Directions for the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Registry is taking a much more proactive role in chasing legal representatives and in ensuring that cases are listed at the earliest possible opportunity. It has performance indicators for dealing with casework: all decisions on permission applications to be made within twelve sitting weeks of receipt of all the necessary documentation; and all hearing dates to be offered within four sitting weeks of the grant of permission. Where there are difficulties in achieving the second of these targets early views are sought from a designated Justice as to how the case should be managed. In addition, the Supreme Court also has better management of information available than was available to staff in the House of Lords Judicial Office.                   Publication: The judgment has been published in: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2243.html http://www.lccsa.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=18438&rcid=11&pcid=9&cid=11&mid=71   5.   Dissemination : The delay in this case was caused by the lengthy wait for a judgment from the House of Lords. As noted in the General measures section above, since this case was determined in the UK, the Supreme Court has come into existence and taken over the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.   The General measures section above details the measures the Supreme Court has put in place to prevent similar delays arising in future.   This judgment has been disseminated to the Supreme Court and therefore the Government considers no further dissemination is necessary.   6.   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.