CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 mars 2010

.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 } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCDDD76F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .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 } .s15A4B0A7 { height:13.35pt } .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 } .sF7E3B0A7 { height:15.05pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; 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 } Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Watson against France   (Application No. 31677/96, Interim resolution DH(2000)20 of 14 February 2000)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to Interim Resolution DH(2000)20, adopted on 14 February 2000 in the case of Watson against France, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the opening of letters sent to the applicant by the secretariat of the former European Commission of Human Rights (heeinafter referred to as “the Commission”) and by a member of the European Parliament (see details in Appendix), and to make public the report of the Commission;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 27 September 1999;   Whereas at the 704th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 10 April 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 5   000 FRF in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1   000 FRF in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 6   000 FRF, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 14 February and 10 April 2000, having regard to France’s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of former Article 32 of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the Committee of Minister’s decision of 10 April 2000 (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded, 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 928 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (21 June 2005), that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)3   Information about the measures taken in the case of Watson against France     Introductory case summary   The case concerns an illegal interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, on account of the fact that, while he was detained, the prison authorities opened letters addressed to him by the secretariat of the former European Commission on Human Rights and a member of the European Parliament, between 1995 and 1998, although this was explicitly forbidden by the domestic applicable law since 1994 as regards the Commission and since 12 May 1997 as regards the European Parliament (violation of Article 8).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 5   000 FRF 1   000 FRF 6   000 FRF Paid on 30/08/2000, default interests paid on 2/07/2003   b) Individual measures   The violation has stopped and the applicant has been awarded a just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered and the costs and expenses incurred. No further individual measure appears to be necessary.     II.   General measures   As regards the correspondence with the organs of the Convention, this case is similar to the case of A.B. against France (application No. 22135/93, finding of violation established by Committee of Ministers’ decision of 16 May 1996, Final Resolution DH(1997)482): following the introduction of the application in the case of A.B., the Minister of Justice had sent a note, dated 20 June 1994, to all prison directors specifying that detainees’ correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights, whatever the organ (ie, the president, a member or the Secretariat) should remain unopened. These instructions were still in force at the time of the facts in the case of Watson.   As regards the correspondence with the European Parliament, an order ( arrêté ) of 12 May 1997 extended to the correspondence with members of the European Parliament the exemption from control.   These safeguards have been integrated into Section A40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which accordingly provides inter alia that members of the European Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights are listed among the administrative authorities with whom detainees can correspond in sealed envelope (see also Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)50 in the case Slimane-Kaïd against France). This part of the provision has not been affected by the further amendments to the Code.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under former Article   32 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.