Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)126[1]
Hellig against Germany
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 20999/05, judgment of 7 July 2011, final on 7 October 2011)
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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)360E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent state, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)360E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Application of Hellig v. Federal Republic of Germany (no. 20999/05)
Report on the execution of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
delivered on 7 July 2011 (final since 7 October 2011)
Action Plan / Action Report
1. Violation of the Convention determined by the Court
The case concerned the Application of a prisoner regarding his detainment in a security cell in prison without clothes for seven days. The Court considered the Applicant’s seven-day placement in the security cell in itself to have been justified by the special circumstances of the case. However, the Court concluded that there had been no sufficient reasons to justify such harsh treatment as the removal of the Applicant’s clothes for the entire duration of his placement in the cell.
2.Individual measures
The compensation awarded by the Court, totalling €13,500, was received on 5 January 2012 by the Applicant’s legal representative, who had submitted a power of attorney authorising him to receive the compensation sum awarded. Please find attached a photocopy of the relevant accounting entry.
3.General measures
a)In the Land of Hesse
Immediately after pronouncement, the Court’s Judgment was communicated to all prison authorities of the Land of Hesse – the Land where the violation of the Convention took place. The Prisons Sub-committee of the Parliament of the Land of Hesse (Landtag) was also informed of the Court’s Judgement.
On 12 July 2011, in its initial response to the Judgment, the Ministry of Justice of the Land of Hesse requested – in addition to the two easy-tear, non-woven paper covers already provided, one of which serves as a garment – the general provision by all prisons with immediate effect of a piece of underwear made from non-woven paper.
At the same time, a survey was carried out in the Laender which produced the following conclusion: Most Laender perceived a much lesser danger in the provision of garments to those at risk of suicide than that previously estimated in Hesse. Hamburg, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, Saarland and Thuringia provide normal tracksuits or similar garments, and in some cases even quilts or woollen blankets. Bavaria plans to introduce a rule to stipulate the provision – in addition to a piece of disposable underwear made from non-woven material – of a shirt and a cover, each made of tear-resistant material.
In Baden-Württemberg, aside from underwear made of non-woven material, some prisoners are given shirts made out of tear-proof, non-twistable material. However, such shirts have the disadvantage of being heavy, stiff and therefore very uncomfortable.
In keeping with the intent of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which particular value is to be ascribed to the protection of modesty, Hesse has decided – in addition to a cover and a piece of underwear made of non-woven paper – to provide prisoners with a paper shirt. Schleswig-Holstein has already had positive experience with this. On 17 October 2011, the prisons were therefore requested to follow this procedure.
b)Further general measures
A German translation of the judgment was sent to all the ministries of justice of the Laender for notification within their remit.
In addition to this, a German translation of the judgment was published in anonymous form on the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice in the Ministry’s case-law database (/egmr). Furthermore, the translation was sent to several important publishing houses that bring out legal periodicals.
Moreover, the judgment will be included in the report drawn up by the Federal Ministry of Justice, entitled Bericht über die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und die Umsetzung seiner Urteile in Verfahren gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Jahr 2011 (“Report on the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and on the Execution of its Judgments in Cases against the Federal Republic of Germany in 2011”). This report is widely disseminated, and will be published on the Federal Ministry of Justice website at (Recht → Öffentliches Recht → Beauftragte für Menschenrechtsfragen). (/DE/Recht/OeffentlichesRecht/BeauftragteMenschenrechtsfragen/WichtigeUrteiledesEuropaeischenGerichtshofsfuerMenschenrechte/_node.html)
4.Conclusions
The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction; that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations, and that Germany has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy