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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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)130 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights M.M. against the Netherlands   (Application No. 39339/98, judgment of 8 April 2003, final on 24 September 2003)     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 illegal interception of telephone conversations of the applicant, by a private person with the help of the police (violation of Article   8), (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the Netherlands'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 new, 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,   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)130   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of M.M. against the Netherlands     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the unlawful interception of certain telephone conversations of the applicant by a private individual with the assistance of the police who had, in 1993, suggested that the private individual concerned connect a cassette recorder to her telephone, carried out the connection and provided operating instructions.   The applicant was eventually sentenced on 28 April 1994 by the Court of Appeal to 4 months' imprisonment suspended and a fine, for several offences. The recorded telephone conversations were not relied on as evidence, but they were found not to be illegal by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.   The European Court considered that there had been interference by a public authority and that this interference had not been “in accordance with the law”, the conditions in force at the relevant time concerning telephone interception not having been met in this case (violation of Article 8).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Costs and expenses Total Paid on 10   000 € 10   000 € 03/12/2003   b) Individual measures   The recordings and any transcriptions thereof are no longer in the possession of the Netherlands authorities.     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 by strictly respecting the conditions set forth by the Netherlands legislation for interception of telephone conversations. For this purpose, the judgment has been published in several legal journals in the Netherlands ( NJCM-Bulletin 2003, 654; NJB 2003, 18; and EHRC 2003, 45 ), and it has been brought to the attention of all courts and public prosecutors.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation(s) of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that the Netherlands have thus complied with their 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