CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 juin 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 } .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 } .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 } .s2D2AB0A7 { height:12.45pt } .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 } .s25E6E78A { height:13.2pt } .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 } .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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)58 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Veraart against the Netherlands   (Application No. 10807/04, judgment of 30 November 2006, final on 28 February 2007)     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 an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression due to an admonition given to the applicant (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its 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(2010)58   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Veraart against the Netherlands     Introductory case summary   The case concerns an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression which the European Court found not to be “necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 10).   The applicant, a lawyer was at the material time representing certain members of a family accused by their daughter/sister in a television programme to have committed several crimes against her (including sexual abuse resulting in five pregnancies, three infanticides, one forced abortion and the sale of a baby). These claims were based on memories which she had repressed but had been able to recover with the aid of a therapist. In a radio programme on the issue, the applicant questioned the professional qualifications and competence of this therapist and expressed the opinion that such persons were not fit to administer psychotherapy to patients (§54). The therapist in question lodged a complaint against the applicant with the Dean of the local Bar Association. The Amsterdam Disciplinary Council declared the therapist’s complaint unfounded. On 3/10/2003 the Disciplinary Appeal Tribunal nonetheless granted his appeal, finding that the applicant’s statements had been unnecessarily wounding for the therapist, and gave the applicant an admonition.   The European Court considered that the Disciplinary Appeal Tribunal’s decision was based on an inadequate assessment of the facts and the reasons given lacked relevance.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 2 583 EUR 2 583 EUR Paid on 10/01/2007   b) Individual measures   The applicant submitted no claim for damage before the Court. He declared himself satisfied with the European Court’s finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Furthermore, the applicant’s professional record contains a reference to the judgment of the European Court and a copy of the judgment.     II.   General measures   The judgment was published in EHRC 2007/17, pp. 166-174, and in several other legal journals ( Advocatenblad 2007, p. 497; NJ 2007, p. 368; NJB 2007, nr. 12). The Netherlands authorities consider that 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.   In addition, the Ministry of Justice is drafting a new law ( Kaderwet tuchtprocesrecht ) containing an explicit provision for revision of a finding of the Disciplinary Appeal Tribunal following a judgment of the European Court. It is expected to be sent to the Council of State for advice at the end of 2010.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken will prevent similar violations and that the Netherlands have thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies