CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 septembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2586C02 { width:24.28pt; display:inline-block } .s2A0B8845 { width:27.06pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sC4C5A1E3 { width:26.23pt; display:inline-block } .sBC9A962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)171 Strömblad against Sweden Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   (Application No. 3684/07, judgment of 5 April 2012, final on 5 July 2012)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013 at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of Ministers of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)668 );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action report Case of Strömblad v. Sweden Application No. 3684/07, judgment final on 5 July 2012   Case summary   1.   Case description   The applicant in this case had applied for divorce and initiated custody proceedings before the Swedish District Court, after his wife had moved to the Czech Republic with their daughter born in August 2003. In an interim decision, the District Court granted the applicant and his former wife joint custody and gave the applicant right of contact with his daughter. The custody proceedings were pending before the national courts for almost five years, before the District Court, in a final judgment, concluded that the applicant’s former wife be granted sole custody of the child.   The Court found unanimously on the facts that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to family life) in regard to the protracted custody proceedings. The Court found by 5 votes to 2 that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in regard to the remainder of the application. The Court found unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy).   Individual measures   2.   Just satisfaction:   The just satisfaction award of €7 000 and the award for costs and expenses of €3 000 have been paid and evidence supplied.   3.   Individual measures:   The government considers no further individual measures are required.   General measures   4.   General measures:   The Court’s judgment related to the scope of Sweden’s positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the specific facts of the case. Therefore, the government considers that no legislative or administrative measures are necessary.   5.   Publication:   The judgment and a summary in Swedish are published in the following location: The government’s human rights website at http://www.manskligarattigheter.se   6.   Dissemination:   The government has distributed the judgment to, inter alia , the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of Skåne and Blekinge, the District Court in Kristianstad, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Gothenburg, the Malmö Administrative Court, the Swedish National Courts Administration, the parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice.   The government considers it unnecessary to further disseminate the judgment.   7.   State of execution of judgment:   The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the case should be closed.