CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 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 } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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 } .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)120 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Cevizovic against Germany   (Application No. 49746/99, judgment of 29 July 2004, final on 29 October 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 violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand and the excessive length of criminal proceedings, both starting with the applicant's arrest in 1996 and coming to an end in 2001 (4 years and 9 months) (violation of Articles 5, paragraph 3 and 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Germany'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, 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;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), 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)120   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Cevizovic against Germany     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand and the excessive length of criminal proceedings, both starting with the applicant's arrest in 1996 and coming to an end in 2001 (4 years and 9 months) (violation of Articles 5, paragraph 3 and 6, paragraph 1). The applicant, a Croatian national, was charged among other things with attempted murder, aggravated robbery and grievous bodily harm. The length of the proceedings was caused by the need for a new trial after two lay judges fell ill. What is more, the proceedings, once resumed, were not conducted swiftly, the court holding on average less than four hearings a month, each lasting an average of less than two-and-a-half hours.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Costs and expenses Total Paid on 870 € 870 € 25/05/2005       b) Individual measures   The European Court held that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, noting in particular that the national courts had reduced his sentence in the light of the delays in proceedings. In July 2001, under an agreement reached with the prosecutor, the applicant was expelled to Croatia, his country of origin, to serve his sentence there.     II.   General measures   The European Court found that “the competent court should have fixed a tighter hearing schedule in order to speed up the proceedings” when the proceedings had to be resumed after the applicant had already been detained for two years ( paragraph 51 of the judgment). The judgment of the European Court was sent out by letter of the Government Agent of 29 July 2004 to the domestic courts concerned, in particular to the Regional Court of Hanover. All judgments of the European Court against Germany are publicly available via the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice ( www.bmj.de , Themen: Menschenrechte, EGMR) which provides a direct link to the European Court's website for judgments in German www.coe.int/T/D/Menschenrechtsgerichtshof/Dokumente_auf_Deutsch/ ) . As the violation found does not appear to reveal a structural problem, no other general measures are deemed necessary.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Germany has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies