Resolution ResDH(2006)74[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Steur against the Netherlands
(Application No 39657/98, judgment of 28 October 2003, final on 28 January 2004)
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 final judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee on 28 January 2004;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns his freedom of expression which had been infringed upon (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 the Netherland'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;
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 its examination.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)74
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Steur against the Netherlands
Introductory case summary
This case concerned an interference in the freedom of expression of the applicant, a lawyer, in that in 1996 he was sentenced (under Article 46 of the Act on the legal profession) by a disciplinary council to an admonition for having pleaded during a trial that a social security investigating officer had exerted unacceptable pressure on his client resulting in the latter's incrimination. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal had upheld the applicant's admonition on the grounds that he did not support his allegations with evidence when he made them, although he subsequently did so.
The European Court noted in particular that the disciplinary authorities had not attempted to establish whether the applicant's allegations were true or had been made in good faith. While it is true that no penalty had been imposed on the applicant, the Court found that the threat of an ex post facto review was difficult to reconcile with the advocates' duty to protect the interests of their clients and might adversely affect the way they performed their professional duties. In the circumstances, the Court found that the restrictions on the applicant's freedom of expression did not meet a pressing social need (violation of Article 10).
Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, there is no just satisfaction.
b) Individual measures
The admonition at issue in this case was not mentioned in the applicant's professional file. Accordingly, the violation had only had moral consequences, which have been taken into account and remedied through the publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all the authorities concerned.
General measures
The judgment was notified to lawyers' disciplinary authorities, drawing their attention to their obligation to give effect to the Court's findings in this case. Furthermore, the judgment was published in the legal magazines NJB (Nederlands Juristenblad) 2003, No. 57 and Advocatenblad 2004, No. 4. Considering the direct effect of the Convention and of the European Court's judgments these measures are considered sufficient to prevent new future similar violations.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 December 2006 at the 982nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy