CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 26 février 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Final Resolution ResDH(2001)55 Human Rights Application No. 21073/92 S.J., B.J. and G.J. against Sweden   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 February 2001 at the 741 st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (98) 315, adopted on 25 September 1998 in the case of S.J., B.J. and G.J. against Sweden, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as the two first applicants had not been able to put their case fully before the Court of Appeal and that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on account of the alleged failure to inform the third applicant of the proceedings, and decided to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights; 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 applicants, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 30 October 1999; Whereas at the 695 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 14 February 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay jointly to the two first applicants as just satisfaction, within three months, 10 000 Swedish crowns in respect of non-pecuniary damage; for costs and expenses: 20 000 Swedish crowns in respect of the applicant’s first representative and 2 000 Swedish crowns in respect of their second representative, namely a total sum of 32 000 Swedish crowns, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicants; Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 25 September 1998 and 14 February 2000, having regard to Sweden’s obligation under former 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 respondent State drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that, on account of the specific circumstances of the case, new similar violations of the Convention could be avoided for the future by informing the Courts of Appeal and the authorities concerned of the requirements of the Convention: copies of the Commission’s report have accordingly been sent out to them; Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 5 April 2000, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicants the total sum of 32 000 Swedish crowns as just satisfaction, Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of Sweden, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case.