Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Van Geyseghem and 4 other cases against Belgium
(see details in Appendix)
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 they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern infringements of the right of the applicants, who failed to appear and had not complied with warrants for their arrest, to be defended by a lawyer (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 combined with Article 6 paragraph 3c)), and in the cases of Goedhart, Stift and Stroek, also lack access to a tribunal (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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 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 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 these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)2
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Van Geyseghem and 4 other cases against Belgium
Introductory case summary
These cases concern infringements of the applicants’ right to defended by a lawyer of their own choosing at different stages of criminal proceedings (first instance, appeal and opposition (appeal on specific grounds of non-representation)), since the courts seized refused, between 1993 and 1998, because of the applicants’ failure to appear before the court, to hear their lawyers or take into account the pleadings filed by them on the merits (violations of Article 6§1 combined with Article 6§3c)).
The cases of Stroek, Stift and Goedhart also concern an infringement of the right of access to a court as a result of the decisions of the Cour de cassation declaring the applicants’ appeal on points of law inadmissible, since they had not complied with warrants for their arrest (violations of Article 6§1). At the end of the proceedings, the applicants were all sentenced to fines and imprisonment. Moreover, the cases of Stroek and Goedhart, an international arrest warrant was issued out against the applicants.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Date of judgment
Final on
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Paid on
Van Geyseghem
No 26103/95
21/01/99 - Grand Chamber
21/01/99
300 000 BEF
300 000 BEF
31/03/99
Goedhart,
No 34989/97
20/03/01
20/06/01
30 000 BEF
30 000 BEF
09/07/01
Stroek L. et C.,
No 36449/97+
20/03/01
20/06/01
100 000 BEF
100 000 BEF
30/05/01
Pronk,
No 51338/99
08/07/04
08/10/04
7 606 EUR
7 606 EUR
06/09/04
Stift,
No 46848/99
24/02/05
24/05/05
3 000 EUR
7 650 EUR
10 650 EUR
11/08/05
b) Individual measures
In the case of Van Geyseghem, the sentence imposed on the applicant has been time-barred since 14/06/98.
In the cases of Stroek and Goedhart, on 29/11/01 the Belgian authorities partly pardoned the applicant, as a result of the international arrest warrants taken out against them have been declared void.
In the Pronk case, the applicant’s sentence has been time-barred since 1/10/2008, and in the Stift case, since 29/06/08.
In addition, a law allowing the reopening of criminal proceedings following a judgment of the European Court was passed on 01/04/2007. The Act entered into force 1/12/2007 (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)65 by which the Committee of Ministers closed its examination of the case of Göktepe) and provided for, as a transitional measure, a possibility for applicants concerned by a judgment of the European Court whose execution was still pending before the Committee of Ministers to apply for the reopening of proceedings within six months of its entry into force.
II.General measures
The Code of Criminal Procedure had been amended by an Act of 12/03/2003, so that it is now established that a lawyer may represent his or her client under all circumstances and that anyone may lodge an appeal on points of law, even if they are not detained in accordance with a judicial decision.
Moreover, the European Court’s judgment in the Van Geyseghem case has been widely disseminated with a circular and the Cour de cassation has changed its case law (see judgment of the Cour de cassation of 16/03/1999, case No P980861N).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that Belgium has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy