Resolution CM/ ResDH (2013 ) 10 [1]

Leas against Estonia

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 59577/08, judgment of 6 March 2012, final on 6 June 2012)

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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2013)24E );

Recalling that the respondent State ’ s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a 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 its above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)24E );

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

DECLARES that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

Leas v. Estonia

Application No. 59577/08 , Judgment of 6 March 2012

1) Case description :

The case concerned the applicant ’ s complaint that the criminal proceedings No. 1-06-5729 directed against him in 2005-2008 had been unfair as he had not been given access to a covert surveillance file on him which had led to the charges being brought against him and, subsequently, to his conviction. The Court did not consider that the procedure employed to determine the issue of disclosure of evidence complied with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings and equality of arms or incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused (violation of Article 6 § 1).

2) Individual measures :

Apart from payment of just satisfaction (EUR 5,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, paid on 2 July 2012), on 19 November 2012 the Estonian Supreme Court has granted Johannes Leas ’ request to review (re-examine) the criminal proceedings No. 1-06-5729 that had been directed against him.

The grounds for the initiation of the review proceedings were related to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights satisfied Johannes Leas ’ (hereinafter the “applicant”) individual application on 5 March 2012 and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Granting the request to review a case means according to § 366 (1) sub-clause 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Supreme Court found that the violation established by the Strasbourg Court may have affected the resolution of the criminal matter and it could not be eliminated or damage caused thereby could not be compensated in a manner other than by review of the criminal case .

In the course of the review proceedings the Supreme Court will decide on the resumption of the proceedings in the applicant ’ s criminal matter No. 1-06-5729 . According to § 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if a request for review is justified, the Supreme Court annuls the contested court decision by a judgment and sends the criminal matter for a new hearing by the court which made the annulled decision or to the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office for a new pre-trial proceeding to be conducted. If there is no need to ascertain new facts in the criminal matter subject to review, the Supreme Court itself may make a new judgment after the review of the criminal matter (without aggravating the situation of the convicted offender). The Supreme Court will make its decision within the following months.

3) General measures :

As the applicant ’ s case would appear to be sui generis and unlikely there are similar cases, there is, in the view of the Government, no need for specific legislative or regulatory action. Should, nevertheless, such a case arise reference to the Court judgment which is now part of Estonian law would be sufficient guidance for the judicial and administrative authorities.

For the purposes of publication and dissemination, the judgment of the Court was translated into Estonian and published on the web-site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ( http://www.vm.ee/?q=taxo n omy/term/229 ) and widely disseminated, including to the authorities directly concerned.

4) Conclusions of the respondent State :

Estonia has paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment in due time.

The applicant had and he used the right to request the review of his criminal proceedings, which request the Supreme Court has granted. As the request for review was granted on 19 November 2012 the outcome of the Supreme Court review proceedings is not yet known. But the fact itself that the review proceedings have been initiated proves that the applicant had an effective and accessible individual measure which is in accordance with the Committee of Ministers Recommendation No (2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

Estonia finds that the judgment is implemented properly and fully and asks to clo se the examination of the case.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 March 2013 at the 1164th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.