CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 juin 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 } .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 } .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 } .sAF55C774 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s7EECFA37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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)85 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Baars against the Netherlands   (Application No. 44320/98, judgment of 28 October 2003, final on 28 January 2004)     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 “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 the denial of compensation for pre-trial detention contrary to the right to presumption of innocence (violation of Article 6, paragraph 2, 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 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 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, 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 the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)85   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Baars against the Netherlands     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the presumption of the applicant's innocence in compensation proceedings he brought after criminal charges against him for bribery of a public official had been dropped. The applicant sued for reimbursement of his legal costs and compensation for his pre-trial detention. The appeal court dismissed his suit on the grounds of the outcome of the criminal proceedings brought against the public official in question, in which the applicant was a witness. The European Court found that the appeal court's reasoning amounted to a decision on the applicant's guilt, which had nonetheless not been legally established (violation of Article 6, paragraph 2).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 2   500 EUR 2   500 EUR Paid on 04/12/2003     b) Individual measures   The applicant's claims in respect of his arrest and of the costs of the compensation proceedings were rejected by the Court on account of the way they were formulated (no causal link with the violation found; costs not incurred with a view to securing reparation of the violation found). Nothing in the material before the Committee suggests any development warranting a fresh examination of the issue (see criteria set out in Committee of Ministers' Recommendation Rec(2000)2 to member states on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights). In addition, the applicant submitted no request in this respect.     II.   General measures   Given the direct effect of European Court's judgments in the Netherlands, all authorities concerned are expected to align their practice to the present judgment. For this purpose, the judgment has been published in several legal journals in the Netherlands, such as in the NJCM-Bulletin 2004, 234 , in the NJB 2003, p.   2300, No. 44 and in EHRC 2003, p. 927-931, No. 97. Thus, the government considers that this dissemination will prevent new, similar violations.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that the Netherlands has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46 paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …at the ..th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies