CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 28 février 2007

.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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)7 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Epple against Germany     (Application No. 77909/01, judgments of 24 March 2005, final on 24 June 2005 and of 15 December 2005 (revision and just satisfaction), final on 15 March 2006     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 judgments of 24 March and 15 December 2005, transmitted once they had become final to the Committee of Ministers under Articles 44 and 46;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of the applicant's detention in police custody (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1b) (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 Germany's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   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 applicant 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 CM/ResDH(2007)7   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Epple against Germany   Introductory case summary   The case concerns the excessive length of the applicant's detention in police custody for 19 hours (from 18.45 on Friday 18 July 1997 to 13.45 the following day). The applicant had been arrested for refusing to obey an instruction to leave the island of Lindau given because, on account of his punk haircut, he was suspected of taking part in the “Lindau Days of Chaos” which had been forbidden by the public authorities (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1b). The applicant had already taken part in “Chaos Days” in Lindau and elsewhere. The European Court established that there had been no breach of the statutory time-limit, since Section 20(3) of the Bavarian Police Tasks and Competencies Act ( Gesetz über die Aufgaben und Befugnisse der Bayerischen Staatlichen Polizei – Polizeiaufgabengesetz ) provided that, in the absence of a prior court order for continued detention, persons in police custody were in all cases to be released at the latest at the end of the day following their arrest. However, the Court noted that the offence for which the applicant was arrested carried a maximum fine of 250 euros. The applicant had been held for 19 hours, as the Lindau District Court did not sit at weekends and the duty judge on Saturday 19 July 1997 had arrived late (at about 11.30 a.m. instead of 10 a.m.) and had to examine the lawfulness of the detention of no less than 17 people. In the light of the circumstances of the case and the importance of the right to liberty in the Convention, the Court found that the combination of the period the applicant had spent in police custody and the judge's delay in considering his case meant that a proper balance had not been struck between the need to enforce the order made against the applicant and the applicant's right to liberty (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (b)).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Costs and expenses Total Paid on 1   700 € 1   700 € 18/04/2006     b) Individual measures   The applicant applied to the European Court for revision of the judgment with respect to Article 41. In its revised judgment of 15 December 2005, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction with regard to non-pecuniary damage.     II.   General measures   The judgment of the European Court which does not seem to reveal a strucural problem, was disseminated by letters of the Government Agent of 13 April 2005 and 2 January 2006 to the courts and justice authorities concerned, i.e. the State Ministries of Justice and of the Interior of Bavaria, the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court against Germany are publicly available via the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice ( www.bmj.de <http://www.bmj.de> , Themen : Menschenrechte , EGMR) which provides a direct link to the Court's website for judgments in German ( www.coe.int/T/D/Menschenrechtsgerichtshof/Dokumente_auf_Deutsch/ <http://www.coe.int/T/D/Menschenrechtsgerichtshof/Dokumente_auf_Deutsch/> ).   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 February 2007 at the 987th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies