CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 22 avril 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } Resolution ResDH(2004)16 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 November 2002 (final on 7 February 2003) in the case of Veeber I against Estonia   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 April 2004 at the 879th 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 Veeber I case delivered on 7   November 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 37571/97) against Estonia, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 July 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Tiit Veeber, an Estonian national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicant’s complaints that the search and the seizure by the police of documents in his company’s premises violated his right to respect for private life, that he did not have access to a court in relation of these police actions and finally that he did not have an effective remedy before the national authorities against the police search and seizure of documents;   Whereas in its judgment of 7 November 2002 the Court:   -   held, unanimously, that the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, insofar as it concerned the police search and seizure of documents, lay outside the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis ;   -   held, unanimously, that insofar as the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerned the retention of documents the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies;   -   held, by six vote to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   - held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;     - held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, in itself constitutes adequate just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant;   - held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, 1 600 euros in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 7 November 2002, having regard to Estonia’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 gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;   Having satisfied itself that on 11 April 2003, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 7 November 2002,   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Estonia, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2004)16   Information provided by the Government of Estonia during the examination of the Veeber I case by the Committee of Ministers     Following the facts at the origin of Veeber I case, the Supreme Court (Grand Chamber), in a judgment of 22   December 2000, adopted the view that, pursuant to Section 3§1(1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure, judicial review of measures of police search and seizure of documents concerning company premises fall within the jurisdiction of administrative courts. The Supreme Court referred to Article   13 of the Convention and concluded that every person whose fundamental rights and freedoms were violated by a such procedural act was entitled to file a complaint with an administrative court and, if appropriate, to obtain redress of the infringement of his or her rights. According to the Code of Administrative Court Procedure, administrative courts are empowered to quash police actions such as search and seizure of documents and to award compensation for any damages caused by the illegal act (Section 6§2(1) and §3(2)).   In addition, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been transmitted, in Estonian, to the authorities directly concerned, to other courts and public prosecutors in order to point out their obligations under the Convention. The judgment has been published on the website of the Council of Europe Information office www.coe.ee and in the book Human rights and their protection in Europe , which is distributed free of charge to NGOs and all relevant governmental agencies, libraries and universities.   In the light of the foregoing, the Government is of the opinion that Estonia has fulfilled its obligations relating to the execution of the Court's judgments in this case under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   The Government recalls, furthermore, that as regards prior authorisation for searches, the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted on 12/02/03 and entering into force on 01/07/04, provides in its Article 91, paragraph 2 that a search shall be conducted on the basis of an order of the Public Prosecutor’s office or a court ruling. In the former case the order shall be subject to judicial review (Article 230 of the Code).