CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 janvier 2009

.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 } .sFB4D0E3C { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC16889D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s589818D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)6 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Rutten against the Netherlands   (Application No. 32605/96, judgment of 24 July 2001, final on 24 October 2001)   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 referred to as “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 fact that the decision to prolong the applicant’s confinement to a secure institution was given after the expiry of the time-limit provided for by the national law and more than one month after the expiry of the initial confinement order (violation of Article 5§4 of the Convention) (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 Netherlands’ 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, in 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) and considering the decision taken at the 803 rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (22 July 2002), 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(2009)6   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Rutten against the Netherlands     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the failure, by the Dutch competent courts, to decide speedily on the lawfulness of the prolongation of the applicant’s confinement to a secure institution in 1995. The prolongation request was determined by the Arnhem Regional Court more than one month after the expiry of the initial confinement order and more than two months and seventeen days after the date on which the prolongation request was filed, whereas according to the national law the court should decide at the latest two months after this date. Furthermore, it took the Arnhem Court of Appeal more than three months to determine the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the decision of the Regional Court (violation of Article 5§4).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total / / 7,000 NLG 7,000 NLG Paid on 17/10/2001   b) Individual measures By the time the European Court was seized of this case, the violation had already ended. The European Court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any damage suffered and no individual measure appeared, thus, necessary.   II.   General measures   As a follow-up to the judgment of the European Court, the penitentiary Chamber of the Arnhem Court, which is the only competent court for cases of confinement to a secure institution, has been reorganised. Its working methods have been reviewed and changed in order to speed up the appeal-procedures in cases like this.   Furthermore, the judgment was published in the Official Journal ( “de Staatscourant” Nr.130 10/07/2002) and disseminated to the Arnhem Court of Appeal, to regional courts and to public prosecutors.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government considers that the measures adopted 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 9 January 2009 at the 1043rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies