Doc. 8186

10 September 1998

Execution of certain cases pending before the Committee

of Ministers

Written Question No. 378

by Mrs Ragnarsdóttir, MM. Clerfayt, Hagård and Jurgens

Mrs Ragnarsdóttir, MM. Clerfayt, Hagård and Jurgens,

Observing that member states of the Council of Europe have the obligation to abide by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the subsequent decisions of the Committee of Ministers in respect of findings of Human Rights violations;

Noting that this entails, where necessary, that the respondent State undertakes general measures in order to avoid the repetition of the violation found and individual measures aimed at full reparation of the damage caused by the violation;

Considering that the necessary measures should be taken without any undue delay to ensure respect with the obligations set up under the Convention;

Observing that the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of all violations found by the Convention Organs;

Taking into account that the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Assembly is preparing a report on the execution of judgments of the Court and the monitoring of the case-law of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights;

Considering that the replies by the Committee of Ministers may provide valuable pointers for the committee's rapporteur.

I. Old cases:

Observing that the following cases have been pending before the Committee of Ministers for more than 3 years without any resolution having been issued explaining what measures have been taken or are envisaged in order to execute them adequately:

Gaskin v. the U.K. (judgment of 7 July 1989)

De Geoffre de la Pradelle v. France (judgment of 16 December 1992)

Modinos v. Cyprus (judgment of 22 April 1993)

Poitrimol v. France (judgment 23 November 1993)

Holm v. Sweden (judgment of 25 November 1993)

Keegan v. Ireland (judgment of 26 May 1994)

To ask the Committee of Ministers:

To explain the length of time necessary for full execution in the above-mentioned cases and to provide information on the current situation in these cases.

II. Cases appearing to require special measures for the applicant:

Furthermore, noting that pending before the Committee of Ministers are a number of special cases in which mere payment of just satisfaction does not appear sufficient to repair fully the damage caused by the violation found, notably Hakkar v. France, the Socialist Party and others v. Turkey and the United Communist Party of Turkey and others v. Turkey;

Observing that in the Hakkar case the Committee of Ministers found on 15 December 1995 several violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the grounds that in criminal proceedings against the applicant he did not enjoy the right to legal assistance of his own choosing and that the appointed official defence lawyers did not have time and facilities to prepare his defence;

Observing that the applicant was sentenced to a life imprisonment and is still, 3 years after the finding of the violation, in prison,

To ask the Committee of Ministers:

If it accepts the applicant's situation and, if not, what practical measures France envisages to remedy that situation.

Observing that in the Socialist Party and others v. Turkey case (judgment of 25.5.1998) and the United Communist Party of Turkey and others v. Turkey (judgment of 30.1.1998) case the European Court of Human Rights found that the Turkish Constitutional Court had violated Article 11 of the Convention by dissolving the applicant political parties,

To ask the Committee of Ministers:

If Turkey envisages any measures to allow the applicant political parties and their leaders to resume their political activities.

Signed:

Ragnarsdóttir, Iceland, EDG

Clerfayt, Belgium, LDR

Hagård, Sweden, EDG

Jurgens, Netherlands, SOC