CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 juin 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC16889D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s589818D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE42162BA { width:19.8%; 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 } .s386903DC { width:11.5%; 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 } .s1138243D { width:23.02%; 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 } .s961F1CB5 { width:21.58%; 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 } .s3B59CB97 { width:24.1%; 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 } .s47ABF4D6 { width:19.8%; 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 } .sAD85FC3A { width:11.5%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s25D77115 { width:23.02%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s225E1814 { width:21.58%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s620E1688 { width:24.1%; 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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s3323862D { width:24.1%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)81 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Henworth & Massey against the United Kingdom   (Henworth, Application No. 515/02, judgment of 2 November 2004, final on 2 February 2005; Massey, Application No. 14399/02, judgment of 16 November 2004, final on 16   February   2005, rectified on 29 April 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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   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 in the Massey case, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix), and having noted that in the Henworth case, the Court awarded no just satisfaction,   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, 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;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 960 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (28 th March 2006), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)81   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of Henworth & Massey against the United Kingdom     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings between 1995 and 2001 (violations of Article 6§1). The European Court emphasised the need to proceed expeditiously at the appeal stage in both cases: in the Massey case because of the delay in bringing the matter to trial, and in the Henworth case, because, having elected to retry the applicant (who was then in custody) more than once, the state was under a responsibility to proceed with particular diligence.   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures     a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Henworth (515/02) -- -- -- 0 Massey (14399/02) -- 4   000 EUR 4   000 EUR 8   000 EUR   Paid on 12 May 2005     b) Individual measures   The proceedings with respect to both applicants completed in 2001. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.   II.   General measures   The Henworth judgment was published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2005) 40   EHRR 33. The Massey judgment was reported in The Times Law Reports and received wide press coverage. Both judgments have been sent out to the relevant authorities, namely the Criminal Appeal Office and the Court Service. Ministers were informed of the judgments and the Criminal Appeals Office ensured that the judgments were brought to the attention of all judges. In the circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measures are required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the United   Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies