CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 juin 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8EE18E3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sF480646D { width:17.92pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s682A13C7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C60E42A { text-align:left; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s9D928AA3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s33E89948 { width:10.87pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8F1FDE85 { margin-left:56.7pt; text-align:left; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1FBF8308 { width:5.7pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB6FF9115 { width:4.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD5FF4A2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s919E91DC { width:32.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7A5A2521 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)114 A et autres contre Royaume-Uni Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 3455/05, arrêt du 19 février 2009, Grande Chambre)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2013, lors de la 1172e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     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 que le Comité 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 les violations constatées   ;   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 à l’obligation susmentionnée,   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(2013)413 ) [1]   ;   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. Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action Report   A and others v the United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 301 (application No. 3455/05) Updated information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 29 June 2012 and 28 March 2013   Case summary                   Facts and violations found -        Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (the 2001 Act) allowed the detention pending deportation of foreign nationals even if removal was not currently possible if the Secretary of State reasonably believed that the person’s presence in the UK was a risk to national security and reasonably suspected that the person was involved with international terrorism linked with Al Qa’ida. A number of individuals subject to the powers appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. -        The Court held unanimously that there had been:     no violation of Article 3 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 of the ECHR in respect of all the applicants, except for one applicant whose complaints under these articles were declared inadmissible;     a violation of Article 5(1) in respect of all but two of the applicants, since it could not be said that they were detained with a view to deportation and since, as the House of Lords had found, the derogating measures which permitted their indefinite detention on suspicion of terrorism discriminated unjustifiably between nationals and non-nationals;     a violation of Article 5(4) in respect of four of the applicants, because they had not been able effectively to challenge the allegations against them; and     a violation of Article 5(5) in respect of all but two of the applicants, on account of the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the above violations. -        The Court made awards under Article 41 (just satisfaction) which were substantially lower than those which it had made in past cases of unlawful detention, in view of the fact that the detention scheme was devised in the face of a public emergency and as an attempt to reconcile the need to protect the United Kingdom public against terrorism with the obligation not to send the applicants back to countries where they faced a real risk of ill-treatment.   Individual Measures      Just satisfaction : -        The just satisfaction award was paid in May 2009; evidence has been previously provided. -        The just satisfaction paid to the eighth applicant was paid into a bank account that is subject to financial sanctions under the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures Order) 2006. However, the applicant can be authorised access to the funds in his bank account through a special licensing scheme operated by HM Treasury. Details of current financial sanctions and the licensing scheme are available online at : http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_sanctions_index.htm -        Decisions made by HM Treasury on accessing funds which are subject to the licensing scheme can be challenged in the courts, through judicial review proceedings under domestic law [2] . -        The operation of the licensing regime reflects developments in international and European law. The Treasury reports to Parliament quarterly on the operation of the asset freezing scheme, including on licensing activity.      Other individual measures : -                       Part 4 of the 2001 Act was repealed in 2005. The applicants are no longer detained under these powers. -                       No further individual measure appears to be necessary.   General Measures      General measures : -        Derogation under Article 15 of the European Convention: The United Kingdom authorities withdrew the notice of derogation on 16 March 2005. -        Violation of Article 5§1: The detention regime under Part 4 of the 2001 Act was repealed and replaced with a regime of control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act), which came into force in March 2005. The 2005 Act was itself repealed on 15 December 2011 by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011 (the 2011 Act), which replaced control orders with TPIM notices. The 2005 Act can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/2/contents and the 2011 Act at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/contents -        The TPIM regime, like the control order regime before it, operates regardless of nationality. The TPIM powers are subject to renewal every five years by Parliament. -        No further general measures appear necessary in respect of this violation. -        Violation of Article 5§4: The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) was set up by the Special Appeals Commission Act 1997. Although Part 4 of the 2001 Act has been repealed, SIAC continues to hear appeals related to certain immigration decisions as defined in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 or certain decisions to deprive individuals of their British citizenship. -        The TPIM regime, which relates to persons reasonably believed to be involved in terrorism-related activity, also involves the use of “closed material” and the presence of “special advocates”. The court procedures under the 2011 Act were modeled on the SIAC procedures. -        In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF & Others [2009] UKHL 28 (“AF (No. 3)”) , a control order case, the Law Lords followed the Grand Chamber’s decision in A & Others , finding that “the controlee must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions in relation those allegations. Provided that this requirement is satisfied there can be a fair trial...” (§59). -        The question of how much information to disclose is decided in the context of litigation before the domestic courts, following the principles laid down in AF (No. 3) . See, for example, Secretary of State for the Home Department v AS [2009] EWHC 2564 (Admin); Secretary of State for the Home Department v CE [2011] EWHC 3159 (Admin); AH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 787; and AN, AE & AF v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 869 . The UK’s domestic courts are thus applying the judgment in A and others v the United Kingdom in other proceedings as they consider necessary. -        This case law, which is legally binding on the Secretary of State, guides her approach in conducting disclosure exercises. -        Within the UK there are also avenues by which any concerns about the use of closed material procedures can be raised in public, including to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and to Parliamentary Select Committees such as the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. -        Consequently, the UK Authorities’ assessment is that no further general measures are necessary in respect of this violation. -        Violation of Article 5§5: The legal regime which led to this violation (Part 4 of the 2001 Act) is no longer in force. -        No further general measures appear necessary in respect of this violation.      Publication and dissemination : -        The judgment was reported in The Times Law Reports on 20/02/2009 and the All England Law Reports at [2009] All ER (D) (203). It was also widely reported on in the British media. It is available via the British and Irish Legal Information Institute’s web site by searching case law for [2009] ECHR 301.      Conclusion -        The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.   [1] En anglais uniquement. [2] Lord Alton of Liverpool and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 443, para 43.