CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 13 février 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }          The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),           Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hauschildt case delivered on 24 May l989 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;           Recalling that the case originated in an application against Denmark lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 October l982 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Mogens Hauschildt, a Danish national, who complained that the courts that had considered criminal charges brought against him were not impartial;           Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on l6 October l987;           Whereas in its judgment of 24 May l989 the Court:         - rejected by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the Government's preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;         - held by twelve votes to five that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph l (art. 6-1), of the Convention;         - held unanimously that Denmark was to pay to the applicant,   for costs and expenses, £20 000;         - rejected unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;           Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;           Having invited the Goverment of Denmark to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 24 May l989, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;           Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Denmark gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution,           Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Denmark, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                   Appendix to Resolution DH (91)9          Information provided by the Government of Denmark          during the examination of the Hauschildt case                  by the Committee of Ministers           Sections 60 to 62 of the Administration of Justice Act were amended by an Act of l3 June l990 which came into force on l July l990.           According to section 60, paragraph 2, as amended, no judge who has taken pre-trial decisions concerning remand in custody in pursuance of Section 762, paragraph 2, of the Administration of Justice Act (particularly confirmed suspicion of the prisoner's guilt) or concerning certain other investigative steps according to this act may act as trial or appeal judge in the same case.   An exception is made for trials under the special simplified procedure provided for in Sections 925 and 925.a where the accused has confessed the crime and for cases which involve no decision on the evidence of the prisoner's guilt.           Furthermore, a general clause concerning the impartiality of judges was introduced as Section 6l of the Administration of Justice Act.   According to this provision, no person shall act as judge in a case when there are other circumstances apart from those listed in Section 60, paragraph 2, that are liable to call the complete impartiality of the said judge into question.           Concerning the payment of the sum of £20 000 awarded by the Court to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses, it is recalled that the applicant was found guilty of fraud and embezzlement on six counts involving approximately 45 million Danish crowns and that according to Danish law a person convicted in a criminal case has to reimburse the state the trial costs as well as the costs incurred by the detention on remand if he has the financial means, or whenever he gets such means.           In its judgment of l November l982, the Copenhagen City Court ordered the applicant to pay all the costs relating to his trial.   These costs amount to a total of over 3 million Danish crowns which the applicant has not reimbursed to this day.           In the specific circumstances of the present case and in view of the fact that the sum awarded by the Court relates to costs and expenses and not to any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, it is the Government's view that the sum of £20 000 awarded by the Court should be set up against the sum still owed by the applicant to the authorities of Denmark.