CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 juin 2008

.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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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(2008)44 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Hafsteinsdóttir against Iceland   (Application No. 40905/98, judgment of 08/06/2004, final on 08/09/2004)     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 unlawful detention of the applicant who was arrested for drunkenness and being disorderly on the basis of unclear rules (violation of Article 5§1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Iceland'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   - of 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(2008)44   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Hafsteinsdóttir against Iceland     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the unlawful detention of the applicant (violation of Article 5§1). On six occasions between January 1988 and January 1992 the applicant was arrested for being drunk and disorderly and spent the night in a cell.   The European Court found that the law applicable at the material time was neither precise enough nor clear enough for the public with regard to the length of such detention and the exercise of the police's discretion in the matter. The same applied to the initial decision to detain the applicant. The Court concluded that the deprivation of liberty suffered by the applicant was not “legal" within the meaning of Article 5§1 of the Convention.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 6   500 EUR 6   500 EUR Paid on 23/06/2004   b) Individual measures   No individual measures are required since the applicant is no longer detained. Moreover, the European Court noted that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction.     II.   General measures   The Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the violation was repealed and a new Code of Criminal Procedure (No. 19/1991) entered into force on 1 July 1992. The provisions concerning arrest in the interests of public peace and order were subsequently removed from the Code of Criminal Procedure and included in the new Police Act (No. 90/1997) which entered into force on 1 July 1997. According to this Act, the police now have the power to arrest and detain a person for as long as necessary in case of drunken and disorderly conduct. According to the Administrative Procedures Act (No. 37/1993), which also applies to decisions taken by police officers, the public authorities may never apply more stringent measures than necessary to attain the lawful purpose sought. These provisions have furthermore been incorporated in the Regulation on the Legal Status of Arrested Persons and on Police Investigations (No.   395/1997) as well as in the General Rules of 1998 and other rules issued by the Reykjavik Police Commissioner.   The judgment of the European Court was published and sent out to the various authorities concerned.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken will prevent new, similar violations and that Iceland has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies