CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2A0B8845 { width:27.06pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)162 Dadouch against Malta Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   (Application No. 38816/07, judgment of 20 July 2010, final on 20 October 2010)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013 at the 1177th 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation 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 the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)654 );   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 this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.   Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action report Dadouch v. Malta (Application No. 38816/07, judgment final on 20/10/10)   Case summary   1.   Case description:   The case concerned the delay in the registration of the applicant’s marriage from June 2004 until November   2006.   The Court held that the denial of the registration for a period of over two years was a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s Article 8 rights and thus a violation of Article 8 was found.   Individual measures   2.   Just satisfaction:   The just satisfaction awarded has been paid and evidence of payment previously supplied.   3.   Individual measures:   The applicant’s marriage was registered in November 2006.   The authorities are of the opinion that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures.   General measures   4.   Publication and dissemination:   The judgment has been disseminated to raise awareness within the Public Registry for the purpose of adopting better administrative co-ordination measures when dealing with similar cases in future.   The judgment has been published and disseminated to the Court of Appeal. All judgments of the European Court against Malta are automatically sent out to 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 judgment received media coverage in local newspapers (article published on the Times of Malta online website of 23 July 2010 entitled “Maltese citizen wins damages for delay in marriage registration”).   Judgment features in the publication in the names “Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012”, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.   Given that the case concerned a single incident of bad administration, the authorities consider that no other general measures are necessary.   Status of execution of judgment   The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.