Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)190[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Malkov against Estonia
(Application No. 31407/07, judgment of 04/02/2010, final on 04/05/2010)
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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand (violation of Article 5, paragraph 3) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its 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;
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, 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
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), 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(2010)190
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Malkov against Estonia
Introductory case summary
The present case concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand (more than 4 years and 9 months) (violation of Article 5 § 3).
The European Court considered that the frequent adjournments of the hearings before the domestic courts owing in particular to the difficulties for the authorities to obtain the presence of witnesses, the considerable delays between the scheduled hearings as well as the withdrawal of two judges in the criminal proceedings had been decisive factors in explaining the duration of the applicant’s detention during the period complained of and that the domestic courts did not display special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings.
I.Individual measures
The applicant is no longer detained on remand. He was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment in January 2009. The European Court did not award the applicant any sum for just satisfaction because he submitted no claim.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The general measures had already been taken in the context of Sulaoja et Pihlak cases (Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)33).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Estonia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy