AFFAIRES HANIF ET KAHN CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)230 [1] Hanif și Kahn împotriva Regatului Unit Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Cercetarea nr. 52999/08, Hotărârea din 20 decembrie 2011, definitivă la 20 martie 2012) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că el supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "menționate mai jos " Convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012) 888E care reamintește obligaia. (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum ; și măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare ; Am invitat guvernul statului pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor menționate anterior După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)888E FIȘĂ fiind asigurat că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1); DECLAMENTUL pe care l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . . Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action Report [2] Case of Hanif and Khan v The United Kingdom (Applicații nr. 52999/08 and 61779/08); judgment final on 20 March 2012. Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 20 September 2012 Case Summary Case description: The case privibles personals convicted of drug-related offices. During the trial, a member of the juries informed the judge that he was a serving police office, and that he knew one of the police office giving evidence although he had not worked with him in the last two years. Defence counsel applied to have the jurior displied on the grounds that there was a conflict of evidence between the police and the first applicant which the jurists would have to resolve, and that it prin urmare unfair for the juriului to includede a police office. The trial judge dismissed the application. The Court found unanimously on thefacts that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in respect of bot aplications. Individual Measures Just the just satisfaction awards of €4,500 to the first aplicant and € 2,000 to the al doilea aplicant have been paid and evidence imploreded. Individual measures: The Government considerers no further individual measures are required. It is open to the aplicants to make applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for review of their cases. General Measures General Measures The Government also considers no general measures to be necessary. The UK Courts already have the power to dissard a juror. Should a similar case arise again, the UK Courts would be obligad by section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to take into account the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this case when considering whether to exercise that power. The European Court of Human Rights expressly noted at paragraph 145 that it was not assessing the extent to which the legislation The judgment has been publicished in the following location: The British and Irish Legal Information Institute website at http://www.leandii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2247.html Dissemination: The Government considers it unnecessary to further diseminate the judgment ciocause the case is limited to its own specialfacts and does not give rise to any policy changes. State of execution of judgments. The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the case should be closed. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 6 decembrie 2012 cu ocazia celei de-a 1157-a reuniuni a Delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)230

[1]

Hanif et Kahn contre Royaume-Uni

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n

o

52999/08, arrêt du 20 décembre 2011, définitif le 20 mars 2012)

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document

DH-DD(2012)888E

)

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in integrum

; et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document

DH-DD(2012)888E

)

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées

;

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report

[2]

Case of

Hanif and Khan v The United Kingdom (Applications no. 52999/08 and 61779/08);

judgment final on 20 March 2012.

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 20 September 2012

Case Summary

1.

Case description:

The case concerns two individuals convicted of drug-related offences. During the trial, a

member of the jury informed the judge that he was a serving police officer, and that he knew one of the police officers giving evidence although he had not worked with him in the last two years. Defence counsel applied to have the juror discharged on the grounds that there was a conflict of evidence between the police and the first applicant which the jury would have to resolve, and that it was therefore unfair for the jury to include a police officer. The trial judge dismissed the application.

The Court found unanimously on the facts that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in respect of both applicants.

Individual Measures

2.

Just satisfaction

:

The just satisfaction awards of €4,500 to the first applicant and €2,000 to the second applicant have been paid and evidence supplied.

Individual measures:

The Government considers no further individual measures are required. It is open to

the applicants to make applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for review of their cases.

General Measures

1.

General measures

:

The Government also considers no general measures to be necessary. The UK courts already have the power to discharge a juror. Should a similar case arise again, the UK courts would be obliged by section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to take into account the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this case when considering whether to exercise that power.

The European Court of Human Rights expressly noted at paragraph 145 that it was not assessing the extent to which the legislation permitting police officers to participate in jury service in England and Wales complies with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the Convention, but only whether in the circumstances of the applicants’ case, there had been a breach of Article 6(1).

2.

Publication

:

The judgment has been published in the following location:

The British and Irish Legal Information Institute website at

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2247.html

3.

Dissemination:

The Government considers it unnecessary to further disseminate the judgment because the case is confined to its own specific facts and does not give rise to any policy changes.

4.

State of execution of judgment

The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the case should be closed.

[1]

Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.

[2]

En anglais uniquement.