CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 avril 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 } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .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 } .sB0E14B9A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:8.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4846D35A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:340.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .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 CM/ResDH(2007)36 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Goussev and Marenk against Finland Soini and others against Finland   (Applications No. 35083/97 and 36404/97, judgments of 17 January 2006, final on 17 April 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 transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression due to the seizure of certain pamphlets and posters on uncertain legal grounds (violations of Article 10) (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 Finland'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 applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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 judgments, 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, 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 these cases and DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.                                                                                               Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)36   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Goussev and Marenk against Finland Soini and others against Finland     Introductory case summary   These cases concern an interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression (violations of Article   10). The applicants were young people who demonstrated against the department store Oy Stockmann Ab for selling fur coats, and in 1995 organised a sit-in on its premises in Helsinki. Around the same time pamphlets and posters appeared criticising the fur trade in general and Stockmann in particular. In 1996 Stockmann requested a pre-trial investigation on suspicion of public defamation. The applicants' homes were searched and pamphlets and other written material seized. The searches were carried out on a basis other than that of suspicion of public defamation.   The European Court observed that the relationship between the Coercive Measures Act and the Freedom of the Press Act was problematic since it was not clear whether material could be seized on suspicion of defamation during a search based on other grounds. The European Court found that the law as it then stood did not provide the necessary foreseeability and the interference to the applicants' rights was therefore not prescribed by law.     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application No. Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Goussev and Marenk 35083/97 - 2   000 EUR 1   430 EUR 3   430 EUR Paid on 14/07/2006 Soini and others 36404/97 - 3   000 EUR 1   277,70 EUR 4   277,70 EUR Paid on 14/07/2006   b) Individual measures   The applicants were acquitted. Furthermore, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. No further individual measure thus seems necessary.     II.   General measures   The Freedom of the Press Act was repealed by the Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media which entered into force on 1 January 2004. The new Act served to clarify the relationship between legislative provisions on publications and the Coercive Measures Act.   The Court's judgment has been published in the judicial database FINLEX ( www.finlex.fi ).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies