AFFAIRE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD ET AUTRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)67 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Financial Times Ltd și altele împotriva Regatului Unit 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 (denumită în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea") [2] Având în vedere hotărârea de mai jos, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului odată ce a devenit definitiv Numele cauzei (referitor la cerere) Hotărârea Definitivului Financial Times Ltd și alții (88/03) 15/12/2009 15/03/2010 Reamintind că constatările de încălcare făcute de Curte impun, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate în hotărâri, adoptarea de către statul membru pârât, dacă este necesar, a unor măsuri individuale care să pună capăt încălcărilor și să șteargă, pe cât posibil, consecințele acestora pentru solicitant, precum și măsuri generale care să permită prevenirea unor încălcări similare; După ce a invitat autoritățile din statul membru în cauză să furnizeze un plan de acțiune privind măsurile propuse pentru executarea hotărârii; după ce a examinat, în conformitate cu normele Comitetului privind aplicarea articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție,

bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern (a se vedea bilanțul de acțiune, documentul DD(2012)217E [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că Statul pârât a plătit părții reclamante satisfacția echitabilă prevăzută în hotărârea pronunțată; DECURSĂ că acesta și-a îndeplinit funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d Căsuța Summary: The caseta se referă la o încălcare a applicants right to freedom of expresie due to a scurt disclosure order in 2001 obligaing them to provide documents for the purpose of identifying an anonymous jurnalistic source.

The Court found that the interests of the company which obtained the order in elimining threat of damage through viitor disemination of confidential information and in obtaining damages for past breaches of confidence were, even if considered cumulatively, insuficient to outweigh the public interest in the protection of jurnalists Therefore there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Individual Measures Doar satisfactie: The just satisfaction award was paid on 11 March 2010, evidence implored. Other individual Measures: The Government considers that no further individual measures are required. While the judgment found there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the UK scurt decision had been based on a judicial determination of the available evidence.

There is no supozition that the UK rules of Court or substantive law require amendment. The Government not a party to the proceseedings in question so is not in a position to application for the order made by the court to be revoked. However given the length of time which has pased Since the order was mate, any action to enforce it would be time-barred. Secțiunea 24 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides for a limitation period for an action on any judgment of șase ani from the date on which the judgment beforceable. Furtermore, in the unlikely event that the aplicant for the order attempted to enforce it the FT would be point to point to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights as evidence that the order was no longer valid.

General Measures Publication and Dissemination: the UK media publicised the case when the judgment handed down, with links to the judgment on their websites and, in the case of the Times, publicished a law report (see The Times, 16 decembrie 2009). The judgment has been publicished in several series of law reports (see (2010) 50 EHRR 46; [2010] EMLR 21; (2009) 28 BRRC 616; [2009] All ER (D) 147. În plus, The Ministry of Justice has circulated the judgment to the Judiciary of England and Wales by posting it on the Judicial Intranet and also in the monthly business newsletter to judges. The Government considers that all necessary Measures have been taken and the case should be closed. 3 June 2011 [1] Adoptată de Comitetul miniștrilor la 8 martie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1136-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor.

[2] A se vedea, de asemenea, recomandările adoptate de Comitetul miniștrilor în cadrul supravegherii hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului, în special Recomandarea Rec(2004)6 a Comitetului de Miniștri al statelor membre privind îmbunătățirea acțiunilor interne. [3] Numai în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)67 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Financial Times Ltd et autres contre le Royaume-Uni 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 ») [2] , Vu l’arrêt ci-dessous, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité une fois qu’il est devenu définitif ; Nom de l’affaire (réf.

requête) Arrêt du Définitif le Financial Times Ltd et autres (821/03) 15/12/2009 15/03/2010 Rappelant que les constats de violation faits par la Cour exigent, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée dans les arrêts, l’adoption par l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire, de mesures individuelles mettant fin aux violations et effaçant autant que possible les conséquences de celles-ci pour le requérant, et de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ; Ayant invité les autorités de l’Etat défendeur à fournir un plan d’action concernant les mesures proposées pour exécuter l’arrêt ; Ayant examiné, conformément aux Règles du Comité pour l’application de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention, le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement (voir le bilan d’action, document DH ‑ DD(2012)217E ) [3] ; Ayant noté que l’Etat défendeur a versé à la partie requérante la satisfaction équitable prévue dans l’arrêt ; 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.

Financial Times Ltd and Others v. The United Kingdom (application no 821/03) Action Report submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 3 June 2011 Case Summary: The case concerned the violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression due to a court disclosure order in 2001 obliging them to provide documents for the purpose of identifying an anonymous journalistic source. The Court found that the interests of the company which obtained the order in eliminating threat of damage through future dissemination of confidential information and in obtaining damages for past breaches of confidence were, even if considered cumulatively, insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the protection of journalists’ sources.

Therefore there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. . Individual Measures 1. Just satisfaction: The just satisfaction award was paid on 11 March 2010, evidence supplied. 2. Other individual measures: The Government considers that no further individual measures are required. While the judgment found there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the UK court decision had been based on a judicial determination of the available evidence. There is no suggestion that the UK rules of court or substantive law require amendment. The Government was not a party to the proceedings in question so is not in a position to apply for the order made by the court to be revoked. However given the length of time which has passed since the order was made, any action to enforce it would be time-barred.

Section 24 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides for a limitation period for an action on any judgment of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the applicant for the order attempted to enforce it the FT would be able to point to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights as evidence that the order was no longer valid.

General Measures 3. Publication and Dissemination: The UK media publicised the case when the judgment handed down, with links to the judgment on their websites and, in the case of the Times, published a law report (see The Times, 16 December 2009). The judgment has been published in several series of law reports (see (2010) 50 EHRR 46; [2010] EMLR 21; (2009) 28 BHRC 616; [2009] All ER (D) 147). In addition, the Ministry of Justice has circulated the judgment to the Judiciary of England and Wales by posting it on the Judicial Intranet and also in the monthly business newsletter to judges. 4. The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed. 3 June 2011 [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 8 mars 2012 lors de la 1136e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.

[2] voir aussi les recommandations adoptées par le Comité des Ministres dans le cadre de la supervision des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, et en particulier la Recommandation Rec(2004)6 du Comité des Ministres aux Etats membres sur l'amélioration des recours internes. [3] Document en anglais uniquement