CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 septembre 2018

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s7DCF4058 { font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2C5F76E5 { width:16.42%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s46CE3916 { width:48.46%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCED0A951 { width:17.32%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFA7B28F7 { width:17.8%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB8A277B1 { width:16.42%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sCD9F385F { width:48.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8124A76F { width:17.32%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2CD15B36 { width:17.8%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sF56BC03C { width:16.02%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBC58EF1B { width:24.78%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sA28B83B9 { width:23.38%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC2FB17E9 { width:17.92%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEE5706D4 { width:17.9%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76EF34D4 { width:16.02%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4C32E49E { width:24.78%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4A8AE927 { width:23.38%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAEAC9F09 { width:17.92%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE80C71F7 { width:17.9%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } Resolution   CM/ResDH(2018)324 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ekholm against Finland   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 September at the 1324 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application Case Judgment of Final on 68050/01 EKHOLM 24/07/2007 24/10/2007   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 this case and to the violations established concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings and the failure of the competent authorities to comply with judicial decisions (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1);   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 has been a 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 information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see Appendix);   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. Appendix   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Ekholm against Finland     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts. The proceedings, which concerned a dispute between neighbours, began in 1991 and were still pending when the European Court gave its judgment (and thus lasted almost 16 years).   The case concerns also the competent authorities’ failure to enforce final judicial decisions. During the proceedings at issue, the case was five times referred back to the competent administrative authority (South Åland Municipal Health Board). For almost ten years, this board refused to comply with the final judicial decisions taken in the proceedings ordering it to issue appropriate instructions to the applicants’ neighbours.   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Paid on 5,000 EUR 10,000 EUR 5,000 EUR 20,000 EUR 24/01/2008   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered.   On 26 April 2006, the Health Board, following the communication of the case by the European Court to the Government of Finland, complied with the judicial decisions and ordered the applicants’ neighbours to take certain measures. On 15 June 2006, the Health Board dismissed the requests for administrative review made by both parties. On 27 February 2007, the Administrative Court rejected the appeals introduced by both parties. The Supreme Administrative Court gave its decision on 08/ November 2007, upholding the lower court’s decision.   No other individual measure is therefore necessary in this case.   II.   General measures   -   Article 6, paragraph 1 (length of proceedings) The measures adopted in order to avoid new similar violations have been adopted in the Vilho Eskelinen group of cases (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)325 ).   -   Article 6, paragraph 1 (failure to enforce final judicial decisions) The authorities consider that this violation is an isolated one and the publication and dissemination of the judgment are sufficient general measures, in particular in view of the direct effect of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court in the Finnish legal system.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no further individual measures are required, 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 in the present case.