Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)65[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Yassar Hussain against United Kingdom
(Application No. 8866/04, judgment of 7 March 2006, final on 7 June 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 innocence as the judge refused to grant the applicant a defendant’s costs order on the grounds that in his view the applicant was guilty of the offence even though the applicant had just been acquitted (violation of Article 6, paragraph 2) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the United Kingdom’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;
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 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)65
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Yassar Hussain against the United Kingdom
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a judge’s refusal in September 2003 to grant the applicant costs notwithstanding his acquittal, on the ground that in the judge’s view the applicant was in fact guilty as charged despite the failure of the key witness to give evidence.
The Court considered that in taking this decision the judge had relied on suspicions as to the applicant’s innocence after he had been acquitted, which is incompatible with the presumption of innocence (violation of Article 6, paragraph 2).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
--
--
7 500 EUR
7 500 EUR
Paid on 09/08/2006
b) Individual measures
The applicant made no claim in respect of non-pecuniary damages. In respect of pecuniary damage and costs, the applicant claimed the costs of the domestic proceedings and the costs of the application to the European Court. Regard being had to the information in its possession, the European Court awarded the applicant a sum for costs and expenses for the proceedings before the European Court, and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
II.General measures
The relevant law and the practice direction in force at the time concerning the granting of defendants’ costs orders was not called into question by the judgment of the European Court. In the present case, publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment appear to be sufficient measures for its execution.
The judgment of the Court was published in the All England Law Reports at [2006] All ER (D) 83, the European Human Rights Reports at [2006] 43 EHRR 22 and The Times on 5 April 2006. The judgment has been brought to the attention of judges through Continuation Seminars given by the Judicial Studies Board.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required aside from the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the European Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations, and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy