CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 24 juillet 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Resolution DH (2000) 102 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 14 December 1999 (final on 14 March 2000) in the case of Ferreira de Sousa and Costa Araújo against Portugal   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 July 2000 at the 716th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Ferreira de Sousa and Costa Araújo case delivered on 14 December 1999 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Article 44 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 36257/97) against Portugal, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 April 1997 under previous Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Joachim de Jesus Ferreira de Sousa and Ms Rosalina da Costa Araújo, two Portuguese nationals, and that the Court seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11 declared admissible their complaint that the length of certain civil proceedings had been excessive; Whereas in its judgment of 14 December 1999 the Court unanimously: -   held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; -   held that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicants, within three months, 1   400   000 Portuguese escudos in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 250   000   Portuguese escudos in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; -   dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   54 of the Convention which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases under Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11; Having invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 14 December 1999, having regard to Portugal’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as the one found in this case, notably through the reorganisation of the Portuguese court system introduced by the Act of 20 August 1992 (No. 24/92), as implemented by the Decree of 15   September   1993 (No. 312/93) and by the Legislative Decree of 17 June 1994 (No.   222/94) (see Resolution DH (94) 71 in the case of Gama Cidrais against Portugal), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned; Having satisfied itself that on 17 May 2000, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 14 December 1999, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Portugal, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.