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 } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s98CF51EF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)161 Deux affaires contre Malte (Aquilina et autres et John Anthony Mizzi) Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 28040/08, arrêt du 14 juin 2011, définitif le 14 septembre 2011 Requête n o 17320/10, arrêt du 22 novembre 2011, définitif le 22 février 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 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu les arrêts définitifs qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et les violations constatées   ;   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 à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter les arrêts, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)679)   ;   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 ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (anglais uniquement)   Aquilina and others v. Malta Application No. 28040/08, judgment final on 14/09/2011 (and one clone John Anthony Mizzi v. Malta, Application No. 17320/10, judgment final on 22/02/12) Action report submitted by Malta     Case description   Finding a violation of Article 10, the European Court considered that the Maltese courts had overstepped their margin of appreciation when examining the civil claims of defamation against the applicants and that the judgments against the applicants and the ensuing award of damages were disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.   Individual measures   1.   Just satisfaction:   In the case of Aquilina and others, the Court found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and ordered payment of four thousand euros (€4 000) for non-pecuniary damages and four thousand euros (€4 000) for costs and expenses. The Court noted that the applicants had not made a claim for the award of pecuniary damages which they had had to pay during the defamation proceedings (§ 56) which it could have awarded. This payment was effected by means of two Debit Advices of 6   December 2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Economy and Investment: one in favour of Dr   Austin Bencini and another in favour of Dr Stefan Frendo both to the amount of four thousand euros (€4 000). Evidence of the same has previously been   supplied.   In the case of John Anthony Mizzi, the Court awarded the applicant seven hundred euros (€700) in respect of pecuniary damage (representing the award of damages that the applicant had had to pay pursuant to the domestic courts’ decisions) and four thousand euros (€4 000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The payment was effected by virtue of three payment vouchers: (a) payment voucher dated 14 May 2012 to the amount of €3 000 issued in favour of Dr Tonio Azzopardi in respect of the costs and expenses; (b) payment voucher dated 14 May 2012 to the amount of €4 700 issued in favour of John Anthony Mizzi in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages; and (c) payment voucher dated 15 May 2012 to the amount of €2 300 issued in favour of Dr Tonio Azzopardi in respect of part of the costs and expenses. Evidence of the same has previously been supplied.   2.   Other individual measures:   This case concerned a complaint on the part of the applicants that the judgment of the domestic civil courts finding them guilty of defamation breached their rights under Article 10 of the Convention. In fact, in the Aquilina case the applicants complained that the fact that one of the applicants heard the presiding magistrate find a third party guilty of contempt of court gave her the right to publish this as a fact which reflected the reality of what happened on the day of the hearing of a bigamy case.   The government submits that the cases involved an interpretation of the provisions of the Press Act in relation to the particular facts of the case. Such an interpretation does not call for the adoption of individual measures relative to the applicants other than the payment to them of the amounts awarded by the Court.   General measures   3.   General measures:   The government points out that the provisions of the Press Act, Chapter 248 of the Laws of Malta, were not per se found to be in violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The violation centred round the interpretation given by the domestic courts to the provisions of the Press Act when examining the particular facts of the case that the courts were deciding. The Court found that, in the particular circumstances and factual matrix of the cases, the Maltese courts had wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Press Act and had overstepped their margin of appreciation in the interpretation of Article 10 of the Convention. Such an interpretation by the domestic courts does not call for general measures to be adopted beyond publication and dissemination of the judgment.   Moreover, the domestic courts when deciding cases on the basis of the European Convention make extensive reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and follow the principles established therein.   In the circumstances, Malta considers that in view of the above, the Press Act provides the guarantees and protections safeguarded by the Convention and, that publication and dissemination of the judgments will provide sufficient direction to the domestic courts in future cases. Therefore, there is no need to develop further general measures in this regard.   4.   Publication and dissemination:   The judgments were published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta feature as a party are automatically sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.   The judgments were also disseminated through media coverage including an online newspaper article featured on the Times of Malta on 22 November 2011 relative to the case Mizzi v. Malta; and published in: “Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012”, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.   Conclusion   Malta is of the opinion that the issue of execution of the Court’s judgment as regards individual measures and general measures for the Article 10 violation has been properly addressed.   It is therefore Malta’s assessment that these cases are ready for closure.