Resolution ResDH(2005) 92

concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 February 2002 (final on 26 May 2002 ) in the case of Magalhães P ereira against P ortugal

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 October 2005 at the 940th meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the P rotection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Magalhães P ereira case delivered on 26 February 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 44872/98) against P ortugal, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 April 1997 under former Article 25 of the Co n vention by Mr Joaquim Magalhães P ereira , a P ortuguese national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of P rotocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicant ' s complaint concerning the irregularity and the tardiness of the judicial examination of the lawfulness of his detention in a secure psychiatric unit and the absence of legal aid in the relevant proceedings;

Whereas in its judgment of 26 February 2002 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention on account of the failure to provide adequate guarantees regarding the examination of the lawfulness of detention;

- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention on account of the failure to provide adequate protection in that the applicant was unable to obtain legal aid until October 2000;

- held that it was not necessary to assess whether here had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

- held that the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 6 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 5 000 euros minus 1 779 euros in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7 % would be payable on these sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

- dismissed the remainder of the applicant ' s claim for just satisfa c tion;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the mea s ures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 26 February 2002 , having regard to P ortugal ' s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state pointed out to the Committee that, given the specific circumstances of the case, future violations of the same kind should be avoided by informing the authorities directly concerned of the requirements of the Convention; to this end, they have received copies of the Court ' s judgment, which has also been published, both in the original and in P ortuguese translation on the internet site of the Office of Documentation and Comparative Law (Attorney-General ' s Office) – ( http://www .gddc.pt/direitos-humanos/portugal-dh/acordaos);

Having satisfied itself that on 14 October 2002, after expiry of the time-limit set (26 August 2002), the government of the respondent state had paid the a p plicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 26 February 2002, and that the default interest due, that is 90.10 euros, was paid on 14 October 2002 ;

Considering that, the applicant having being freed on 24 May 2002 by the Porto Court , no further measure is required concerning him.

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of P ortugal, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.