CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 février 1996

.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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }    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 Tolstoy Miloslavsky case delivered on 13 July 1995 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;     Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 18139/91) against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 December 1990 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Count Nikolai Tolstoy Miloslavsky, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to a court decision ordering him to pay damages to the amount of 1 500 000 pounds sterling in certain libel proceedings, an injunction restraining him from repeating the libelous statements and an order by the Court of Appeal requiring him to provide security for the plaintiff's costs as a condition for his appeal to be heard;     Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 11 March 1994;     Whereas in its judgment of 13 July 1995 the Court:     - held unanimously that the award was "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;     - held unanimously that the award, having regard to its size taken in conjunction with the state of national law at the relevant time, was not "necessary in a democratic society" and thus constituted a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 10 (art. 10);     - held unanimously that the injunction, either taken alone or together with the award, did not give rise to a breach of Article 10 (art. 10);     - held unanimously that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention was applicable to the proceedings in the Court of Appeal;     - held by eight votes to one that there had been no violation of the applicant's right of access to court as guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), on account of the security for costs order by the Court of Appeal;     - held unanimously that the United Kingdom was to pay the applicant, within three months, in compensation for fees and expenses 40 000 Swiss francs and 70 000 pounds sterling;     - dimissed 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 Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 13 July 1995, having regard to the United Kingdom's 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 the United Kingdom gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;     Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 13 July 1995,     Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.   Appendix to Resolution DH (96) 20   Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during the examination of the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case by the Committee of Ministers     The government recalls that the measures required in order to prevent the repetition of the kind of violation at issue in the present case were already taken before the Court rendered its judgment in the present case.   These measures are summarised in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment.     The government, accordingly, considers that it has complied with its obligations under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention.