Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012) 232 [1] Minshall against United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 7350/06, judgment of 20 December 2011, final on 20 March 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(20 1 2)936E );

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-D D (2012)936E );

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 this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report

Minshall v the United Kingdom (application no 7350/06/ judgment final on 20/03/2012)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 20 September

Case Summary

This case concerns the excessive length of confiscation proceedings, which began in February 2000 following the applicant’s Robert John Minshall’s conviction of conspiracy to evade excise duty on alcoholic liquor. He complained that the ensuing confiscation proceedings against him which concluded in February 2006, were excessively long and in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).

The European Court of Human Rights found the UK in violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceeding) with regard to delay waiting for a judgment from the House of Lords and awarded just satisfaction of EUR 2,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage).

Individual Measures

The just satisfaction award has been paid; and evidence has been supplied.

The Government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.

General Measures

The Supreme Court came into existence on 1 October 2009; it took over the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and now hears these final appeals. Research has showed that the length of time proceedings took in the House of Lords was in some cases extensive. The Supreme Court has taken a number of measures to prevent such delays from arising.  For instance, The Rules of Court and Practice Directions for the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Registry is taking a much more proactive role in chasing legal representatives and in ensuring that cases are listed at the earliest possible opportunity.  It has performance indicators for dealing with casework: all decisions on permission applications to be made within twelve sitting weeks of receipt of all the necessary documentation; and all hearing dates to be offered within four sitting weeks of the grant of permission. Where there are difficulties in achieving the second of these targets early views are sought from a designated Justice as to how the case should be managed. In addition, the Supreme Court also has better management of information available than was available to staff in the House of Lords Judicial Office.

The judgment has been published in:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cas e s/ECHR/2011/2243.html

http://www.lccsa.org.u k / news.asp?ItemID=18438&rcid=11&pcid=9&cid=11&mid=71

The delay in this case was caused by the lengthy wait for a judgment from the House of Lords.  As noted in the General measures section above, since this case was determined in the UK , the Supreme Court has come into existence and taken over the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.

The General measures section above details the measures the Supreme Court has put in place to prevent similar delays arising in future.

This judgment has been disseminated to the Supreme Court and therefore the Government considers no further dissemination is necessary. 

The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case   should be closed.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 11 57 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .