CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 24 juillet 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2ED52ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:13pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       Resolution DH (2000) 101 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 5 October 1999 in the case of Da Conceição Gavina against Portugal   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 July 2000 at the 716th 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, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Conceição Gavina case delivered on 5 October 1999 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 33435/96) against Portugal, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 September 1996 under Article 25 of the unamended Convention by Mr Manuel Da Conceição Gavina, a Portuguese national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint concerning the excessive length of certain civil compensation proceedings; Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the applicant on 30 October 1998; Whereas in its judgment of 5 October 1999 the Court unanimously: -   held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; -   held that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 3   000   000 Portuguese escudos in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages and 725   000 Portuguese   escudos in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; -   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 which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases under Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11; Having invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 5 October 1999, having regard to Portugal’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as the one found in this case, notably through an important reform of the judicial system to speed up the examination of cases through the Act of 20 August 1992 (No. 24/92), as implemented by the decree of 15 September 1993 (No. 312/93) and by the legislative decree of 17 June 1994 (No. 222/94), see Resolution DH (96) 197 in the case of Dias Das Dalmas against Portugal), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned; Having satisfied itself that on 14 January 2000, i.e. 9 days after expiry of the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 5   October 1999, and that the applicant waived his right to claim any default interest in respect of this small delay, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Portugal, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.