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 } .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 } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s52DA50A7 { font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sCA654B4E { font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)57 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Camp and Bourimi against the Netherlands   (Application No. 28369/95, judgment of 3/10/2000)     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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns an infringement of article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8 in that the second applicant could not establish retroactively his relationship with his late father (partner of the first applicant) and thus could not inherit;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with the Netherlands' 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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 757th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (26   June   2001),   DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.                                                                                                     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)57   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Camp and Bourimi against the Netherlands     Introductory case summary   The case concerns an infringement of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8: the recognition of the second applicant, Mr Sofian Bourimi, by his father, who died before he was born, through letters of legitimisation did not have retroactive effect from the time of his birth; as a result Mr Sofian Bourimi, did not have legally recognised family relationships with his father and was unable to inherit from him.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 560 844,75 NLG [2] 6 750 NLG 30   904,75 NLG [3] 598   499,50 NLG Paid in the time limit set     To assess the pecuniary damage suffered by Mr S. Bourimi, the Court took into consideration the amount of which is equivalent to the value of his father's estate, which he would have obtained had he had a legally recognised family relationship with his father at the time of the latter's death.   Moreover the Court awarded compensation to both applicants for non-pecuniary damage.   Therefore no individual measure other than the payment of just satisfaction was required in this case.     II.   General measures   The government recalls that the discrimination found in this case originated in the non-retroactivity of the letter of legitimisation which constituted recognition of the second applicant's status as his father's child.   The government further recalls that the Civil Code has been changed and the option of letters of legitimisation has been replaced by a judicial declaration of paternity ( gerechtelijke vaststelling van vaderschap , Article 1:207) and that such a declaration has retroactive force from the time of a child's birth (see § 19 of the judgment).   In addition, the Court's judgment has been translated and published in the Nederlands Juristenblad.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   In light of the foregoing, the Dutch government considers that there is no longer any risk of a repetition of the violation found in the present case and that the Netherlands have fulfilled their obligations under article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention in this case. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies [2] to be held by Ms Camp for Sofian Bourimi [3] 30   904,75 NLG + VAT – the amounts received by way of legal aid   from the Council of Europe