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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)101 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Bubbins against the United Kingdom   (Application No. 50196/99, judgment of 17 March 2005, final on 17 June 2005)     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 absence of an effective remedy whereby the applicant might seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage following the lawful killing of her brother by a police officer (violation of Article 13, 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 United Kingdom'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 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)101   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Bubbins against the United Kingdom     Introductory case summary   The case concerns, inter alia , the absence of an effective remedy where by the applicant might seek compensation for non-pecuniary damages following the death of her brother, who was shot by the police in 1998, having been mistaken for an intruder in his own house (violation of Article 13). The European Court found that the police operation had been organised so as to minimise any risks, and that the circumstances (the applicant's brother was brandishing a gun, which subsequently turned out to be an imitation) justified the force used. The Court nonetheless found that national law did not afford the applicant a realistic chance of taking a civil action against the police and, if successful, recovering compensation for non-pecuniary damage on behalf of the estate of her deceased brother.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 10   000 € 12   000 € 22   000 € Paid on: 24/08/2005   b) Individual measures   The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary prejudice resulting from the violation of Article 13.     II.   General measures   The United Kingdom authorities indicated that the following the entry into force on 2/10/2000 of the Human Rights Act 1998, a person in the situation of the applicant could bring a claim against the police under section 7 of that Act (that is to say, section 7(1) taken together with sections 7(7) and 6 (1) of that Act) in respect of allegations of a breach of Article 2 of the Convention. Such proceedings would provide a forum in which a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damages in respect of any civil liability of the police could be assessed.   Moreover, the United Kingdom authorities furnished the Van Colle and another v. Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police case [2006] EWHC 360 (QB) (10/03/2006) as an example of case-law under that section. This case concerns Giles Van Colle, a 25-year old prosecution witness who died, almost instantaneously, following an attack by a suspect in a forthcoming trial. The deceased had received threats from and had been subjected to intimidation by the suspect, which he communicated to a police officer. A Disciplinary Panel found the police officer guilty of failing to perform his duties conscientiously and diligently in connection with the intimidation by the suspect of prosecution witnesses.   Proceedings were brought against the police under the section 7 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 by the parents of the deceased as Claimants on their own behalf alleging that Article 2 and Article 8 had been violated, and by his father, as Administrator, on behalf of the estate of the deceased. The High Court of Justice noted that section 7 of the Human Rights Act created a new cause of action, which can found a claim for relief, including damages, against a public authority which has acted unlawfully in breach of Convention rights. The High Court granted a declaration that the Defendants had acted unlawfully, in violation of both Article 2 and Article 8, by failing to discharge their positive obligation to protect the life of the deceased. After having noted that in similar cases, the European Court awarded non-pecuniary damages for both the estate of the deceased and for the distress of surviving spouses or relatives, including parents or siblings, the High Court awarded 15 000 GBP in respect of the deceased's distress in the weeks leading up to his death and   35 000 GBP for the Claimants' own grief and suffering.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government of the United Kingdom considers, in view of the measures taken, that the violation found in this case has been fully remedied and that the United Kingdom has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 June 2007 at the 997th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.