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)55 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Walston (No. 1) against Norway   (Application No. 37372/97, judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003)     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 a violation of the principle of equality of arms in that, in 1996, in the context of certain civil proceedings, the High Court omitted to transmit to the applicants or their lawyer a copy of their opponents' observations submitted pending appeal and that the Supreme Court, before which the applicants lodged a complaint, took no action in respect of this omission (violation of Article 6§1) (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 Norway'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 by the Court in its judgments, 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)55   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Walston (No. 1) against Norway     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the principle of equality of arms in that, in 1996, in the context of certain civil proceedings, the High Court omitted to transmit to the applicants or their lawyer a copy of their opponents' observations submitted pending appeal. The Supreme Court, before which the applicants lodged a complaint, took no action in respect of this omission (violation of Article 6§1).   At the end of the domestic proceedings, some of the applicants' real estate has been sold on auction.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total   8   000 EUR 10   000 EUR 18   000 EUR Paid on 19/02/2004     b) Individual measures   The Court stated that it could not speculate on what the outcome of the domestic proceedings would have been had the fair hearing guarantees of Article 6§1 of the Convention been respected in those proceedings; the Court therefore rejected the applicants' claim for pecuniary damage.   On 2 mars 2004, the applicants asked for the reopening of the domestic proceedings, in application of Article 407(7) of the Code of civil proceedings. On 19 September 2004, the Supreme Court turned down their request out of consideration, in particular, for legal certainty of the private person who is the owner of the real estate. Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that the issue of the case would have been the same, had the violation of the Convention not occurred. Therefore, no further question arises regarding damage for loss of opportunity.     II.   General measures   The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been taken into account in two decisions by the Supreme Court of Norway, decisions dated 25 September 2003 and 1   December   2003 respectively, making it clear that a change in case law, in conformity with the Convention, has taken place.   In addition, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was included in a circular published by the Judicial Administration (“Domstoladministrasjonen”) which is distributed on a regular basis to all courts in Norway (see Lovblikk nr. 2 dated 10 March 2004).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation found in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Norway 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