Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)161
Two cases against Malta (Aquilina and others and John Anthony Mizzi)
Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 28040/08, judgment of 14 June 2011, final on 14 September 2011
Application No. 17320/10, judgment of 22 November 2011, final on 22 February 2012)
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)679);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Aquilina and others v. Malta
Application No. 28040/08, judgment final on 14/09/2011
(and one clone John Anthony Mizzi v. Malta, Application No. 17320/10, judgment final on 22/02/12)
Action report submitted by Malta
Case description
Finding a violation of Article 10, the European Court considered that the Maltese courts had overstepped their margin of appreciation when examining the civil claims of defamation against the applicants and that the judgments against the applicants and the ensuing award of damages were disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Individual measures
1.Just satisfaction:
In the case of Aquilina and others, the Court found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and ordered payment of four thousand euros (€4 000) for non-pecuniary damages and four thousand euros (€4 000) for costs and expenses. The Court noted that the applicants had not made a claim for the award of pecuniary damages which they had had to pay during the defamation proceedings (§ 56) which it could have awarded. This payment was effected by means of two Debit Advices of 6 December 2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Economy and Investment: one in favour of Dr Austin Bencini and another in favour of Dr Stefan Frendo both to the amount of four thousand euros (€4 000). Evidence of the same has previously been supplied.
In the case of John Anthony Mizzi, the Court awarded the applicant seven hundred euros (€700) in respect of pecuniary damage (representing the award of damages that the applicant had had to pay pursuant to the domestic courts’ decisions) and four thousand euros (€4 000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The payment was effected by virtue of three payment vouchers: (a) payment voucher dated 14 May 2012 to the amount of €3 000 issued in favour of Dr Tonio Azzopardi in respect of the costs and expenses; (b) payment voucher dated 14 May 2012 to the amount of €4 700 issued in favour of John Anthony Mizzi in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages; and (c) payment voucher dated 15 May 2012 to the amount of €2 300 issued in favour of Dr Tonio Azzopardi in respect of part of the costs and expenses. Evidence of the same has previously been supplied.
2.Other individual measures:
This case concerned a complaint on the part of the applicants that the judgment of the domestic civil courts finding them guilty of defamation breached their rights under Article 10 of the Convention. In fact, in the Aquilina case the applicants complained that the fact that one of the applicants heard the presiding magistrate find a third party guilty of contempt of court gave her the right to publish this as a fact which reflected the reality of what happened on the day of the hearing of a bigamy case.
The government submits that the cases involved an interpretation of the provisions of the Press Act in relation to the particular facts of the case. Such an interpretation does not call for the adoption of individual measures relative to the applicants other than the payment to them of the amounts awarded by the Court.
General measures
3.General measures:
The government points out that the provisions of the Press Act, Chapter 248 of the Laws of Malta, were not per se found to be in violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The violation centred round the interpretation given by the domestic courts to the provisions of the Press Act when examining the particular facts of the case that the courts were deciding. The Court found that, in the particular circumstances and factual matrix of the cases, the Maltese courts had wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Press Act and had overstepped their margin of appreciation in the interpretation of Article 10 of the Convention. Such an interpretation by the domestic courts does not call for general measures to be adopted beyond publication and dissemination of the judgment.
Moreover, the domestic courts when deciding cases on the basis of the European Convention make extensive reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and follow the principles established therein.
In the circumstances, Malta considers that in view of the above, the Press Act provides the guarantees and protections safeguarded by the Convention and, that publication and dissemination of the judgments will provide sufficient direction to the domestic courts in future cases. Therefore, there is no need to develop further general measures in this regard.
4.Publication and dissemination:
The judgments were published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta feature as a party are automatically sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.
The judgments were also disseminated through media coverage including an online newspaper article featured on the Times of Malta on 22 November 2011 relative to the case Mizzi v. Malta; and published in: “Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012”, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.
Conclusion
Malta is of the opinion that the issue of execution of the Court’s judgment as regards individual measures and general measures for the Article 10 violation has been properly addressed.
It is therefore Malta’s assessment that these cases are ready for closure.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy