CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 décembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s377DE30A { margin-left:29.67pt; padding-left:24.33pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sCAB42500 { margin-left:33pt; padding-left:21pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution ResDH(2006)76 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. against Spain   (Application No. 56673/00, judgment of 29 April 2003, final on 29 July 2003)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the final judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee on 29 July 2003;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicants' right to respect of their family life due to the fact that the national authorities did not deploy adequate or sufficient efforts to guarantee that Ms Iglesias Gil's custody rights in respect of her kidnapped son, and the rights of the child to return to his mother, be respected (violation of Article 8), (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Spain's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing new, similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix;     DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close its examination.   Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)76   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Iglesias Gil et A.U.I. against Spain     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the violation of the applicants' right to respect of their family life due to the fact that the national authorities did not deploy adequate or sufficient efforts to guarantee that Ms Iglesias Gil's custody rights in respect of her kidnapped son, and the rights of the child to return to his mother, be respected (violation of Article 8). By a decision of 20 December 1996, Ms Iglesias was granted the custody rights of the applicant A.U.I. (born on 7 December 1995). On 1 February 1997, the child was kidnapped by his father and removed from Spanish territory. The European Court found that the situation fell, undoubtedly, within the scope of the Hague Convention and that the national authorities should apply it in order to ensure that the child be returned to his mother. However, under Spanish law at that time, child abduction was incriminated only as disobedience, which did not permit the issuing of an international arrest warrant.     Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 20   000 € 14   000 € 34   000 € Paid on 15/09/2003     b) Individual measures   On 8 June 2000, the child was returned to his mother and Ms Iglesias thus recovered her custody rights.     General measures   With Organic Law 9/2202 of 10 December 2002, a new Article 225bis was introduced to the Penal Code. This new provision introduces stricter sanctions, qualifies child abduction as an offence other than disobedience and thus makes it easier for the Spanish courts to request international action in this type of case. The judgment of the European Court was published in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice (No. 1958 of 1 February 2004). It has also been disseminated to several of the authorities concerned.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 December 2006 at the 982nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies