CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 11 septembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2EF16B1D { width:35.4pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s47BB67E2 { font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC4D440AF { width:22.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9726D387 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8.5pt } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)172 Lönn contre Suède Exécution de la décision de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 49801/08, décision du 4 décembre 2012)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 11 septembre 2013, lors de la 1177e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 39, paragraphe 4, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des termes des règlements amiables tels qu’ils figurent dans les décisions de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci ‑ après «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Considérant que dans cette affaire la Cour, ayant pris acte d’un règlement amiable auquel avaient abouti le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur et la partie requérante, et s’étant assurée que le règlement était basé sur le respect des droits de l’homme tel que défini dans la Convention ou ses Protocoles, a décidé de rayer cette affaire du rôle   ;   S’étant assuré de l’exécution des termes du règlement amiable par le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur (voir document DH-DD(2013)658),   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 39, paragraphe 4, de la Convention et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.       Stockholm 28 May 2013   Ministry for Foreign Affairs Sweden (anglais uniquement)   Action report Lönn v. Sweden Application No. 49801/08, decision final on 4 December 2012                  Case description:   The applicant, the father of a child, complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular, that he had suffered gender-based discrimination as a result of the provisions of the 1947 Child Allowances Act, which stipulated that a child allowance must be paid in full to the mother in the case of separated parents with joint custody, unless the mother consented to a different distribution.   In June 2012, the government reached a friendly settlement with the applicant containing the following:   “The government and the applicant have now reached the following friendly settlement on the basis of respect for human rights, as defined in the [Convention], in order to terminate the proceedings before the Court.   a) The government will pay, ex gratia, to the applicant the sum of €8 000 (eight thousand), to be converted into Swedish kroner at the rate applicable on the date of payment. [...] Execution of payment will take place when the government has received the Court’s decision striking the case out of its list of cases.   b) The applicant declares that he has no further claims on the Swedish State based on the facts of the [present] application. This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the government at a Cabinet meeting.” By a decision of 20 September 2012, the government approved the settlement reached and by a decision of 4 December 2012, the Court struck the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.                  Just satisfaction:   The agreed sum of €8 000 have been paid on 17 December 2012 and evidence supplied. The government considers no further individual measures are required.                  General measures:   The government also considers no general measures to be necessary.                  State of execution:   The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the case should be closed.