CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 29 mai 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s25DB3F80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s13D4A312 { margin-left:11.11pt; text-align:left; padding-left:24.89pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sFABB745C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s847B9929 { margin-left:13.88pt; text-align:left; padding-left:22.12pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s8A4FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s4D838228 { margin-left:31.89pt; text-align:left; padding-left:4.11pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sA63CA2D7 { margin-left:16.66pt; text-align:left; padding-left:19.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s74E7C685 { margin-left:17.78pt; text-align:left; padding-left:18.22pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s5D7D1E96 { width:30.29pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s5E92F40 { width:0.73pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17540A { width:21.95pt; display:inline-block } .s101E22AB { width:17.42pt; display:inline-block } .sCD41935 { width:22.41pt; display:inline-block } .s279CBC15 { width:35.85pt; display:inline-block } .sF6F6651F { width:11.86pt; display:inline-block } .s916B44B { width:22.85pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)90 Five cases against Finland (T. and others, Hagert, F. and M., Knaster and Taavitsainen) Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   (Application No. 27744/95, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006 Application No. 14724/02, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006 Application No. 22508/02, judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 17/10/2007 Application No. 7790/05, judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 22/12/2009 Application No. 25597/07, judgments of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 May 2013 at the 1171st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)454 );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases; and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.   Action report on the execution of 5 cases against Finland concerning mainly length of criminal or civil proceedings   Case description   All of the cases (see appended list) concern the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6 §   1). Several cases concern also the absence of an effective remedy enabling the applicants to complain about the length of the proceedings (violations of Article 13).   The case of F and M concerns also the unfairness of criminal proceedings, resulting in the applicant’s conviction in 2001 for sexually abusing his daughter, a minor, on the sole basis of the child’s statements in 1991 without giving the applicant any opportunity to question the victim (violation of Art. 6 § 1 and of Art.   6   §   1 taken in conjunction Art. 6 § 3 (d)).   Individual measures   Just satisfaction In most of the cases the European Court awarded just satisfaction for compensation non-pecuniary damages suffered by the applicants.   Individual measures concerning the case of F and M v. Finland The re-opening of domestic proceedings is possible under national law (Chapter 31, sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Proceedings). Consequently, no other individual measures are necessary.   Other measures The domestic proceedings are closed in all cases. No other individual measure appears necessary.   General measures   Excessive length of proceedings and lack of effective remedy   The measures concerning these issues have been adopted and examined by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the Kangasluoma group of cases (see final resolution CM/ResDH(2012)75).   Unfairness of criminal proceedings due to a lack of possibility to question a victim who is minor   The measures concerning this issue have been adopted and examined by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the case W. v. Finland, no. 14151/02 (see final resolution CM/ResDH(2011)205).   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no individual measure is required in these cases, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   Appendix: list of cases 27744/95       T. and Others v. Finland       13/12/2005   14724/02       HAGERT v. Finland       17/01/2006     22508/02       F and M v. Finland       17/07/2007     7790/05       KNASTER v. Finland       22/09/2009   25597/07       TAAVITSAINEN v. Finland     08/12/2009