CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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)128 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Jankauskas against Lithuania   (Application No. 59304/00, judgment of 24/02/2005, final on 06/07/2005)     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 judgment transmitted by the Court once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the infringement of the right to respect for the applicant's correspondence as, while in remand prison, all his correspondence had been opened and read in his absence by the prison authorities (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Lithuania's obligation under 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;   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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)128   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Jankauskas against Lithuania     Introductory case summary   The case concerns infringement of the right to respect for the correspondence of the applicant, a former police investigator, during a period of detention on remand between 1999 and 2001. In the light of the charges of abuse of office and bribery laid against the applicant, all his correspondence was opened and read in his absence by the prison authorities.   The European Court, while finding that this interference had a legal basis and pursued a legitimate aim, nonetheless considered that the government had not presented sufficient reasons to show why such total supervision of the applicant's correspondence was “necessary in a democratic society”, particularly with regard to the applicant's correspondence with his lawyers or with state authorities, with regard to which confidentiality may only be breached on reasonable grounds (violation of Article 8).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 1   000 EUR 3   000 EUR 4   000 EUR Paid on 30/08/2005   b) Individual measures   The applicant was released from prison in August 2003. He is no longer suffering from the consequences of the violation and therefore no further individual measures, other than the payment of just satisfaction, seem necessary.   II.   General measures   Following the amendment of Article 15§2 of the Law on Pre-trial Detention on 18 April 2000 and 5 July 2001, correspondence with the European Court is no longer subject to censorship. Also letters sent and received by prisoners who have not been tried, with the exception of letters sent to the investigating officer, the Ombudsman, the prosecutor, the state, the municipal institutions, the Ministry of Justice and other competent international institutions, might be censored exclusively by a decision of the investigating officer of the case, the prosecutor or the court. There exists also a draft amendment to the same Article stating that the correspondence with detainees' lawyers may not be censored and that their correspondence with their families or with other persons may only be censored by decision of the investigating judge or the court, for a period of two months, or for the prevention of crimes or offences or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Remand Prisons Internal Rules have also been modified on 7 September 2001 to prohibit censorship by prison staff of detainees' correspondence.   The Lithuanian translation of the judgment has been published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice as well as in the annual compendium Decisions and Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in cases against Lithuania . It has also been sent out with a covering letter to the Supreme Administrative Court, the General Prosecutor's Office and the Prisons Department.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Lithuania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies