CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 7 octobre 2021

.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 } .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 } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { 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 } .sF004B676 { 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 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-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 } .s546C9D04 { 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 } .s40B7A780 { 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 } .s4F2EDFF { 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCCB68666 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)214 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Eleven cases against Finland   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 October 2021 at the 1413 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 184/06 SAARISTO AND OTHERS 12/10/2010 12/01/2011 25576/04 FLINKKILÄ AND OTHERS 06/04/2010 06/07/2010 25711/04 TUOMELA AND OTHERS 06/04/2010 06/07/2010 29576/09 LAHTONEN 17/01/2012 17/04/2012 30865/08 REINBOTH AND OTHERS 25/01/2011 25/04/2011 32297/10 NISKASAARI AND OTAVAMEDIA OY 23/06/2015 03/07/2015 37520/07 NISKASAARI AND OTHERS 06/07/2010 06/10/2010 43349/05 JOKITAIPALE AND OTHERS 06/04/2010 06/07/2010 6372/06 ILTALEHTI AND KARHUVAARA 06/04/2010 06/07/2010 66456/09 RISTAMÄKI AND KORVOLA 29/10/2013 29/01/2014 6806/06 SOILA 06/04/2010 06/07/2010   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 these cases and to the violations established of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression due to their convictions to fines in criminal proceedings, for dissemination of information violating personal privacy or for defamation, and to orders to pay damages, between 2004 and 2011 (violations of Article 10 of the Convention); the Niskasaari and Others and Jokitaipale and Others cases also concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention);   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 action report provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted 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(2016)404 );   Considering that the question of the individual measures was resolved, inter alia because in all these cases the only criminal sanction imposed was a fine, the conviction for which do not appear in the criminal record, the reopening of the impugned proceedings is allowed under domestic law and the Court awarded just satisfaction for pecuniary damage to the applicants who made such requests ;   Having noted that the general measures adopted to avoid similar violations due to excessive length of criminal proceedings were examined in the Kangasluoma group of cases (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)75 );   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Eerikäinen v. Finland case and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.