Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)119[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Singh against the Czech Republic
Vejmola against the Czech Republic
(Application Nos. 60538/00 and 57246/00, judgments of 25/01/2005 and 25/10/2005,
final on 25/04/2005 and 25/01/2006)
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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the excessive length of the applicants' detention with a view to deportation and a lack of prompt examination of their applications for release (violations of Articles 5§1(f) and 5§4) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the Czech Republic's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
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 applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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 these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)119
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Singh against the Czech Republic
Vejmola against the Czech Republic
Introductory case summary
The Singh case concerns excessive length of the applicants' detention pending deportation, which lasted for two-and-a-half years between 1998 and 2001. The European Court noted that, according to Czech law, detention could not be extended beyond two years without serious grounds. The offence of which applicants were convicted was not particularly serious and the length of their detention pending deportation had exceeded that of their prison sentence. As a result, their detention was not in conformity with national law (violation of Article 5§1(f)).
The Singh case also concerns the failure to secure a prompt examination of their applications for release by the first-instance court and the appellate court, which took first almost four months and secondly almost eight months to decide on the applications. The European Court found in particular that the delays in serving judicial decisions were long and took into consideration the fact that the applicants were barred from introducing new applications while their existing requests were still pending (violation of Article 5§4).
The Vejmola case also concerns the applicant's protracted detention on remand and the failure to ensure a prompt examination of his application for release by the Czech courts, which took three months and thirteen days to decide on it (violation of Article 5§4). The European Court found that a period of such length, which had deprived the application of all legal and practical effect, amounted to a denial of his right to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of his detention decided speedily.
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Singh (60538/00)
-
10 000 EUR
3 000 EUR
13 000 EUR
Paid on 25/07/2005
Vejmola (57246/00)
-
3 000 EUR
2 020 EUR
5 020 EUR
Paid on 25/04/2006
b) Individual measures
The consequences of the violation found in the Singh case have been redressed by the European Court through the award of just satisfaction to compensate the non-pecuniary damage suffered. The applicants were freed in February 2001, one residing in the Slovak Republic, the other having remained in the Czech Republic.
In the Vejmola case, the applicant was released in 2000. The consequences of the violation found in this case have been redressed by the European Court through the award of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.
II.General measures
The judgment in the Singh case has been published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice and sent out to all competent national judges with a covering letter indicating that any arrest or detention should only last a reasonable time and that proceedings to determine the lawfulness of detention should be carried out promptly. More strict national provisions concerning these issues are already in force. According to the amendments made to the Code of Criminal Procedure (entered into force on 1 January 2002), the courts now have a duty promptly to decide an application for release from detention, and no later than within five working days.
The Czech authorities have also provided statistics concerning detention pending deportation. Since 2002 the situation seems to have improved significantly (the average length of detention pending deportation being 199 days in 2001, 87 days in 2002 and 72 days in 2004).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy