CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 mai 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s4AB489F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:20pt } .sD8D566C3 { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .sF60A7932 { margin-top:89.55pt; margin-left:180.8pt; position:absolute } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   RESOLUTION DH (97) 222 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 9 FEBRUARY 1995 AND 26 FEBRUARY 1996 IN THE CASE OF WELCH AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 May 1997 at the 590th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Conven ­ tion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Welch case delivered on 9 February 1995 and on 26 February 1996 and transmitted the same days to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 17440/90) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 June 1990 under Article   25 of the Convention by Mr Peter Welch, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that a confiscation order imposed on him constituted a retrospective criminal penalty;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 20   January 1994;   Whereas in its judgment of 9 February 1995 the Court unanimously:   – held that there had been a violation of Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   – held that the United Kingdom was to pay, within three months, 13 852 pounds sterling and 60   pence, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, for costs and expenses, less 10   420   French francs to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate of exchange applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment;   – reserved the question of the application of Article 50 of the Convention as regards damage;   Whereas in its judgment of 26 February 1996 the Court unanimously:   – held that the finding of a violation of Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction as to the alleged non-pecuniary damage;   – and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   54 of the Convention;   Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments of 9 February 1995 and 26 February 1996, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article   53 of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom accordingly recalled that measures had been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation found in the present case, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution, and that the judgments of the Court as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that within the time limit set, the Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 9 February 1995;   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.