Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012)6 7 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Financial Times Ltd and others against the United Kingdom

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”) [2] ,

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Financial Times Ltd and others (821/03)

15/12/2009

15/03/2010

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 as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;

Having invited the authorities of the respondent State to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;

Having, in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH ‑ DD( 2 012)217E );

Having noted that the respondent State paid the a p plicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

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.

Financial Times Ltd and Others v. The United Kingdom (application no 821/03)

Action Report submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 3 June 2011

Case Summary:

The case concerned the violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression due to a court disclosure order in 2001 obliging them to provide documents for the purpose of identifying an anonymous journalistic source. The Court found that the interests of the company which obtained the order in eliminating threat of damage through future dissemination of confidential information and in obtaining damages for past breaches of confidence were, even if considered cumulatively, insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the protection of journalists ’ sources. Therefore there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

.

Individual Measures

1. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award was paid on 11 March 2010, evidence supplied.

2. Other individual measures:

The Government considers that no further individual measures are required. While the judgment found there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the UK court decision had been based on a judicial determination of the available evidence. There is no suggestion that the UK rules of court or substantive law require amendment.

The Government was not a party to the proceedings in question so is not in a position to apply for the order made by the court to be revoked. However given the length of time which has passed since the order was made, any action to enforce it would be time-barred. Section 24 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides for a limitation period for an action on any judgment of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the applicant for the order attempted to enforce it the FT would be able to point to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights as evidence that the order was no longer valid.

General Measures

3. Publication and Dissemination:

The UK media publicised the case when the judgment handed down, with links to the judgment on their websites and, in the case of the Times, published a law report (see The Times, 16 December 2009). The judgment has been published in several series of law reports (see (2010) 50 EHRR 46; [2010] EMLR 21; (2009) 28 BHRC 616; [2009] All ER (D) 147). In addition, the Ministry of Justice has circulated the judgment to the Judiciary of England and Wales by posting it on the Judicial Intranet and also in the monthly business newsletter to judges.

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

3 June 2011

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 11 36 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .

[2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec (2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member State s on the improvement of domestic remedies.