Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)33[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Sulaoja against Estonia
Pihlak against Estonia
(Applications No. 55939/00 and 73270/01, judgments of 15 February 2005 and 21 June 2005,
final on 15 May 2005 and 21 September 2005)
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 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 unjustified extension of the applicants' detention on remand and the failure to examine their applications for release promptly (violations of Articles 5, paragraph 3 and 5, paragraph 4) (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 Estonia'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;
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 these cases and DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)33
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Sulaoja against Estonia
Pihlak against Estonia
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the unmotivated extension of the applicants' detention on remand which in the Sulaoja case lasted for a year and a half in 1998 - 1999 and in the Pihlak case for 2 years and 22 days in 1998‑2000 (violations of Article 5, paragraph 3).
In this respect the European Court found that the grounds for detaining the applicants – a brief standard formula justifying the detention on the ground of the applicants' previous convictions – did not maintain a character of sufficiency throughout the period of detention. The Court also found that the authorities had not considered any alternative means of ensuring the applicants' appearance at trial and had not displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings.
The Sulaoja case also concerns the Supreme Court's failure to examine the applicant's request for release promptly; it took nearly three months to give a decision (violation of Article 5, paragraph 4).
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application No.
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Sulaoja 55939/00
-
3 000 EUR
-
3 000 EUR
Paid on 13/06/2005
Pihlak 73270/01
-
1 500 EUR
-
1 500 EUR
Paid on 07/10/2005
b) Individual measures
The consequences of the violations found in these cases have been redressed by the European Court through the award of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages. No further individual measure seems necessary.
II.General measures
Under the Estonian Code of Criminal Procedure (which entered into force mainly in 2004 and 2005), a person may not be kept in pre-trial detention for more than six months unless there are exceptional reasons for it. After the initial arrest warrant a detainee may, within two months, ask the preliminary investigation judge or a court to verify the reasons for the detention. A new request may be submitted two months after the previous one. The preliminary investigation judge must decide on such requests within five days of receipt. If the term of the pre-trial detention has been extended for more than six months, the preliminary investigation judge must verify the reasons for the detention at least once a month regardless of whether this has been requested or not.
The judgments of the European Court have been translated into Estonian, published on the internet site of the Council of Europe information office () and widely distributed to courts, to ministries and other relevant authorities, to draw their attention so that due account may be taken of the violations found by the European Court in the future.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Estonia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy