CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 juillet 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s2A0B8845 { width:27.06pt; display:inline-block } 1176th meeting – 10 July 2013   Appendix 13 (Item H46-1)   Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)144 Stephens against Malta (No. 1) Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   (Application No 11956/07, judgment of 21 April 2009, final on 14 September 2009)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013 at the 1176th 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 violations established;   Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a 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 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)650);   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 Stephens against Malta (No. 1) (Application No. 11956/07; judgment final on 14 September2009)     Case summary   1.   Case description:   The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention for ten days (between 12 November 2004 and 22 November 2004) after his arrest order made during the course of extradition proceedings had been declared illegal (violation of Article 5 § 1).   Whilst noting that the Constitutional Court had confirmed that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 because the arrest warrant was null and void and had granted the applicant compensation, the European Court observed that the judgment of the Constitutional Court made no reference to the ten-day period of detention in November 2004 and had not increased the compensation granted in the light of this continued unlawful detention. The European Court therefore held that the violation resulting from this period of detention was imputable to Malta and had not been redressed.   Individual measures   2.   Just satisfaction:   The just satisfaction awarded has been paid and evidence of payment previously supplied.   3.   Individual measures:   No other individual measures appear necessary.   General measures   4.   General measures:   Given that the judgment concerned an isolated incident, which had in the main been redressed by the Constitutional Court (with the exception of the ten day period in 2004), the Maltese authorities do not consider that any general measures, other than the dissemination of the judgment are necessary.   5.   Publication and dissemination:   The judgment has been disseminated to raise awareness amongst high ranking officials at the Police Department.   The judgment has also been published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court against Malta are automatically sent out to competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.   Judgment features in the publication in the names ‘Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012’, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.   State of execution of judgment   The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.