CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 28 février 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)14 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Bowman against United Kingdom   (Application No. 24839/94, judgment of 19 February 1998)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 and new Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provide that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the final judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee on 19   February   1998;   Recalling that the violation found by the Court in this case concerns the prosecution brought against the applicant following the distribution of leaflets against abortion prior to a general election in 1992 (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with the United Kingdom's obligation under former Article 53 and new Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which are applicable by decision of the Committee of Ministers to cases under former Article 54;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 803rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (July 2002),   D eclares that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case, and   DECIDES to close its examination.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)14   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Bowman against United Kingdom     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the prosecution brought against the applicant, Executive Director of an anti-abortion association, for having distributed leaflets which indicated the position that certain political candidates had on abortion prior to a general election in 1992.   Mrs Bowman was charged with an offence under Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”), which prohibited expenditure of more than five pounds sterling (“GBP”) by an unauthorised person during the period before an election on conveying information to electors with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate.   The Court found it significant that the limitation on expenditure contained in section 75 of the 1983 Act had been set as low as GBP 5 and concluded that this provision operated, for all practical purposes, as a total barrier to Mrs Bowman's publishing information. It was therefore not satisfied that such a restriction was proportionate, particularly in view of the fact that there were no equivalent restrictions placed upon the media (violation of Article 10).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses TOTAL Finding of violation is sufficient just satisfaction 26,633.64 pounds sterling + VAT 26,633.64 pounds sterling + VAT Paid on 12/05/98   b) Individual measures   At Mrs Bowman's trial at Southwark Crown Court on 27 September 1993, the judge directed her acquittal, because the summons charging her with the offence had not been issued within one year of the alleged prohibited expenditure, in accordance with the time-limit stipulated in section 176 of the 1983 Act (paragraph 14 of the ECHR judgment of 19/02/98).   The Court furthermore held, unanimously, that the finding of violation was sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.   Accordingly, the adoption of further individual measures did not appear to be necessary in this case.   II.   General measures   Publication and dissemination of the judgment   The case received broad media coverage in the British press and in legal journals.   Furthermore, the Home Office brought the case to the attention of all electoral administrators and a circular, dated 22/06/98, was distributed to all returning officers.   Legislative measures   Immediately after the issuing of this judgment, the authorities of the United Kingdom asked the independent body (Neill Committee) they had established to report on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom to consider the implications of the Bowman judgment and of the general preventive measures that might be envisaged.   The recommendations of this committee resulted in the adoption, in December 2000, of a new law on the financing of political parties (the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000), which entered into force on 16/02/2001 and notably amended Section 75 of the 1983 Act.   In particular, the restriction on expenditure, which had been found by the European Court to be significantly low, has been raised (by section 131 of the 2000 Act) from 5 to 500 GBP in respect of a candidate at a parliamentary election and to 50 GBP in respect of a candidate at a local government election.   The scope of the amendment by section 131 of the 2000 Act unintentionally left ambiguous whether the limit had been raised to 500 GBP in respect of certain of the four categories of expenditure regulated by section 75 of the 1983 Act. In R v. Holding [2006] the Court of Appeal (in order to take proper account of the judgment in Bowman and in accordance with the obligation under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to construe legislation to be compatible with Convention rights “so far as it is possible to do” found that the raised limit did apply to each category of expenditure; and the United Kingdom authorities took the further step of removing the ambiguity from the text of the 1983 Act by section 25 of the Electoral Administration Act   2006 (which was given retrospective effect from 16/02/2001).   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 February 2007 at the 987th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies