CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 septembre 2011

.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 } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF5DD15CD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-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 } .sA91C8AC { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s74C12B71 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s90FD50B8 { width:6.15pt } .sC9247B22 { width:123.6pt } .sB8C14443 { width:123.65pt } .sCE754C3E { width:114.55pt } .s509FB992 { width:84.75pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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(2011)130 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Lombardo and others against Malta   (Application No. 7333/06, judgment of 24 April 2007, final on 24 July 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 disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression due to a judgment against them in civil libel proceedings concerning the publication of an article in 2001 on a road-building project denouncing a local council for failure to consult the public or to take account of public opinion (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(2011)130   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Lombardo and others against Malta   Introductory case summary   This case concerns a breach of the freedom of expression of the applicants, of whom the first three were members of the Fgura Local Council and the fourth the editor of the newspaper In-Nazzjon Taghna . In 2001 civil proceedings for libel and defamation were instituted against the applicants concerning the publication of an article in 2001 on a road-building project, denouncing the Local Council for failure to consult the public or to take account of public opinion. The proceedings concluded in a judgment of 7 October 2005 of the Constitutional Court that the publication had been defamatory.   The European Court found that the article did not exceed the bounds of acceptable criticism, observing in particular the importance of preserving elected representatives’ freedom of expression in matters of public interest. The Court also considered that the applicants’ statements had adequate basis in fact, and included that in spite of the modest amount of damages awarded against the applicants, the finding had been such as to dissuade criticism of the local council’s policy and was thus unnecessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 10).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 1460 EUR 6000 EUR - 7460 EUR Paid on 21 June 2007   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damages sustained with regard to the fines and damages ordered in the domestic proceedings. The applicants made no claim in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damages. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.   II.   General measures   The judgment of the European Court of has been sent out to the competent authorities and is publicly available via the website of the Ministry of Justice and Home affairs which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website: ( http://www.mjha.gov.mt/ ).   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Malta has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies