CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 26 septembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s97D52449 { width:7.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC65EB21A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt } .s381CCF79 { width:3.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB0735A85 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)130 [1]   Van Velden contre Pays-Bas   Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 30666/08, arrêt du 19/07/2011, définitif le 19/10/2011)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)741E ) [2]   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -      de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -      de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)741E )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées   ;   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action Report of the Government of the Netherlands on the implementation of the Court’s judgment concerning Application no. 30666/08, VAN VELDEN v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 19 July 2011, Final on 19 January 2012     Introduction   1.   On 20 June 2008 Mr Robertus Gemma Maria VAN VELDEN (‘the applicant’) submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) under Article 34 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’).   2.   On 19 July 2011 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention. In addition, the Court ordered the Government of the Netherlands (‘the Government’) to pay the applicant €1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Convention.   3.   With reference to the standard classification procedure [3] the Government of the Netherlands wishes to present its action report, with a view to closure of the case by the Committee of Ministers.   Case description   4.   Violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security due to the deprivation of access in   2007 (rejection of his appeal as out of time) to a procedure to obtain his release from pre ‑ trial detention which under domestic law ought to have been open to him (Article   5   §   4). The Court found that the domestic courts’ rejection of the applicant’s appeal as being lodged out of time was based on the wrongful application of domestic law.   Individual measures   5.   The Government of the Netherlands is of the opinion that no further individual measures are required, since the applicant is no longer suffering any consequences of the violation. Later on, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment from which the time which he had spent in detention on remand was deducted in its entirety (see § 15 of the judgment).   General measures   6.   The violation occurred as a result of an isolated incident. The publication and dissemination of the judgment would be sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future. The Dutch authorities consider that, in view of the direct effect of the Court’s judgments in the Netherlands, all the authorities concerned are expected to align their practice with the present judgment. The judgment and the commentary have been published in several Dutch legal journals, including European Human Rights Cases [4] and Nederlands Juristenblad [5] .   7.   Furthermore, the judgment was brought to the attention of the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak) and the National Office (Parket-Generaal) of the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie) by the Ministry of Security and Justice. Both organisations were asked to disseminate the information.   Just satisfaction   8.   In its judgment the Court ordered the Government to pay the applicant €1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, within three months of the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Government paid this amount and notified the Department for the Execution of the Judgments of the Court accordingly by emailing it the payment registration form on 1 February 2012.   Conclusion   9.   The Government believes that the measures taken fulfil the requirements that arise from the Court’s judgment and that these measures will prevent similar violations in the future.   The Hague, 6 August 2012   Liselot Egmond Deputy Agent of the Government of the Netherlands   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 26 septembre 2012 lors de la 1150e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Uniquement en anglais [3] As set out in CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 and CM/Inf/DH(2010)37E. [4] EHRC 2011, 146, with commentary from J. van der Velde. [5] NJB 2011, no. 1824.