Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)183[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Puig Panella against Spain
(Application No. 1483/02, judgment of 25 April 2006, final on 25 July 2006)
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 breach of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence, due to the fact that his request for compensation was rejected on the basis of doubts concerning his guilt, in spite of a decision of the Constitutional Court setting his prison sentence aside and restoring his right to the presumption of innocence (violation of Article 6§2) (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;
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 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
- 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)183
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of
Puig Panella against Spain
Introductory case summary
This case concerns the breach of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence (violation of Article 6§2).
In 1992, the Constitutional Court overturned military proceedings which had resulted in the applicant’s serving a prison term. The applicant lodged a request for compensation which was rejected by the Ministry of Justice in 1993 and by the administrative courts (the latest decision of the Constitutional Court following an amparo appeal was issued on 18/07/2001). The rejections were based on doubts as to the applicant’s guilt, given that his conviction had been set aside on account of a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence arising from the inadequacy of the evidence adduced against him.
The Court found that national authorities had applied Article 294(1) of the Structural Law on the Judiciary, which provides that entitlement to compensation in respect of provisional detention is limited to those who are acquitted or to those against whom proceedings have been definitively dropped because the accusations against them proved groundless. The Court recalled that it was not its role to replace domestic courts and that it could not be asked to determine which provision could have been applied by the authorities. However it considered that the authorities had treated the applicant with excessive severity, as his request was not related to provisional detention but to the sentence he had served and since, he had not been acquitted nor the charges against him dropped. Reliance on Article 294(1) had led them to examine whether the applicant’s responsibility for the alleged acts had been sufficiently established, and thus to pronounce upon his guilt (§§ 55-56 of the judgment).
Moreover, the Court underlined the fact that the applicant’s conviction was still on his criminal record even though the conviction had been definitively set aside by the Constitutional Court more than 13 years before (§ 58 of the judgment).
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
4 299 EUR
16 299 EUR
Paid on 25/07/2006
b) Individual measures
The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages suffered by the applicant. As regards pecuniary damages, the applicant’s claim was rejected, as the Court found no causal link between the violation found and the alleged losses due to missed working opportunities suffered during his detention.
Following the Court’s judgment, the applicant filed a new amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court against its latest decision of 2001. This appeal was rejected by Decision No. 129/2008 of 26/05/2008: the Constitutional Court considered that the just satisfaction granted by the Court sufficiently covered the damages suffered by the applicant and that the violation therefore no longer existed.
The authorities also underlined – as it appears from §38 of the judgment – that the applicant expressly claimed that by filing an application before the Court, he does not seek the recognition of his right to compensation, but the condemnation of the Spanish government for the violation of Article 6§2 of the Convention.
Finally, the applicant’s conviction has been removed from his criminal record..
II.General measures
The judgment of the Court was translated into Spanish and published in the Ministry of Justice’s Official Bulletin and sent by the Ministry to the State Council, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the legal department of the state and to other competent departments.
Since the violation relates to an incorrect application of domestic measures by the authorities, and as Spanish law gives direct effect to the Convention and to the Court’s judgments, the Spanish authorities consider that publication and dissemination of the judgment to the competent authorities constitute sufficient measures.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no further individual measure is required in this case, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Spain 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