CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 novembre 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sD9E934D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sECFB093F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s8017C9A { margin-top:5.4pt; margin-bottom:5.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } RESOLUTION DH (96) 605 HUMAN RIGHTS   APPLICATION No.   21437/93 DOUGAN AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 November 1996 at the 576th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the report drawn up on 11 January 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 22   November 1992 by Mr   Francis Dougan against the United Kingdom (Application No.   21437/93);   Whereas on 22 February 1995 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article   32, paragraph   1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 11 May 1994, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention;   Whereas at the 542nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, in a decision adopted on 11 September 1995, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 8 March 1996;   Whereas at the 564th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held, in a decision adopted on 15 May 1996, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of the United Kingdom was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 2   000 pounds sterling in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 700 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 2 700 pounds sterling, and that interest should be payable on any non-paid sum at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest will accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment is placed at the disposal of the applicant;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 11 September 1995 and 15 May 1996, having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under Article   32, paragraph   4, of the Convention to abide by them;   Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 22 July 1996, within the time-limit set, the Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicant the total sum of 2 700 pounds sterling as just satisfaction,   Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case;   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.       Appendix to Resolution DH (96) 605   Information provided by the Government of the United Kindgom during the examination of the case of Dougan by the Committee of Ministers       In order to prevent a repetition of the violation found in this case, the Government of the United Kingdom wishes to underline the measures which have been adopted. A primary reason for the delay in bringing the applicant before trial lay in the prosecuting proceedings and especially in the absence of any speedy execution of the arrest warrant issued against him.   Since 1992, computerisation of record keeping and case tracking introduced in the Procurator Fiscal Service has ensured the regular identification of outstanding warrants to be pursued and executed. It is now the invariable practice that when an accused person fails to appear for trial at the High Court in Scotland a warrant for his arrest is immediately passed to the police for the execution.   In addition, in order to prevent the repetition of the other shortcomings at the basis of the violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, in this case, the Commission's report has been distributed to the authorities concerned so as to draw their attention to their responsibilities under the Convention.   The Government of the United Kingdom considers, accordingly, that it has fulfilled its obligations under Article 32 of the Convention.