Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)58[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Enhorn against Sweden
(Application No. 56529/00, judgment of 25 January 2005, final on 25 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 referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the deprivation of liberty of a person having contracted HIV to prevent the spreading of infectious diseases (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Sweden'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
- general measures preventing, similar violations;
Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix,
DECLARES 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)58
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of
Enhorn against Sweden
Introductory case summary
The case concerns deprivation of the applicant of his liberty as he was liable to spread an infectious disease. In 1994 it was discovered that the applicant was infected with HIV. He was initially instructed to inform people in close contact with him about his infection and to consult the county medical officer regularly. In 1995 an order was subsequently issued to have the applicant kept in compulsory isolation in a hospital for having failed to comply with some of these measures.
The European Court, whilst acknowledging that the HIV virus is dangerous for public health and safety, nevertheless found that, by extending the order for the applicant's compulsory isolation over a period of almost seven years (1995-2001, the applicant having been effectively detained for nearly 1½ years in all), the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the need to prevent the spread of the HIV virus and the applicant's right to liberty (violation of Article 5, paragraph 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
12 000 EUR
2 083 EUR
14 083 EUR
Paid on 21-22/06/2005
b) Individual measures
The applicant is no longer in obligatory isolation and the European Court has awarded him just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered.
II.General measures
A summary of the European Court's judgment is available on the government's internet site (), from where there is a link to the judgment in HUDOC. A summary of the judgment has also been published in the bulletin Domstolverket informerar in August 2005. This bulletin is distributed inter alia to all courts and authorities that operate within the field covered by the National Court Administration. Furthermore, an explanatory report, together with a copy of the judgment, has been sent to the relevant judicial authorities to draw their attention to their obligations under the Convention. Finally, the case has been commented in the legal periodical Svensk Juristtidning (SvJT 2005, p. 382‑383).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures taken will prevent similar, new violations in the future in Sweden and as a consequence has fulfilled its obligations pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy