Resolution ResDH(2005) 62

concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 January 2003 (final on 21 April 2003) in the case of Veeber No. 2 against Estonia

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 July 2005 at the 933rd 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, as amended by P rotocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Veeber No. 2 case delivered on 21 January 2003 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. 45771/99) against Estonia, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 September 1998 under former Article 34 of the Co n vention by Mr Tiit Veeber , an Estonian national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of P rotocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that the applicant ' s conviction for acts committed in 1993 ‑ 1996 under the P enal Code which had entered into force on 13 January 1995 amounted to retrospective application of penal law;

Whereas in its judgment of 21 January 2003 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 840,90 euros in respect of costs and expenses, these sums to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of settlement, and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points would be payable 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 21 January 2003, having regard to Estonia ' 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 gave the Committee information about the measures taken in order to erase the consequences of the violation for the applicant and to prevent new violations of the same kind in the future; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;

Having satisfied itself that on 27 June 2003, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the a p plicant the sums provided in the judgment of 21 January 2003,

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

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)62

Information provided by the Government of Estonia during the exa mination of the Veeber No. 2 case by the Committee of Ministers

Violation of the Convention

The case concerns the applicant ' s conviction for acts committed between 1993 and 1996, under the Criminal Code which entered into force on 13 January 1995, which amounted to retrospective application of criminal law in breach of Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The applicant was sentenced to 3½ year imprisonment, suspended, on charges of tax evasion.

Individual measures

Following the European Court ' s judgment, the applicant submitted an application for reopening of the criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted him leave to appeal and his case was reopened. By judgment of 6 January 2004, the Supreme Court set aside the applicant ' s convictions insofar as these convictions related to facts having occurred prior to the entry into force of the P enal Code and acquitted the applicant of those charges. The Supreme Court has thus effaced the applicant ' s conviction as it was held by the European Court to be in violation of the Convention.

General measures

T he reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings and the applicant ' s ensuing acquittal demonstrates the direct effect granted to the European Court ' s judgments by the Supreme Court of Estonia. Along the same lines, the Supreme Court has stated in many other cases that the Convention is directly applicable before the Estonian courts and that it takes precedence over legislation. The direct effect of the Convention and of the European Court ' s judgments in Estonian law will play an essential role in preventing new violations similar to that found in the present case.

The judgment has been widely disseminated to all relevant authorities and published (in Estonian translation) on the website of the Council of Europe Information Office in Tallinn ( www.coe.ee ) and in a book called “Human Rights and P rotection of Human Rights in Europe”. The latter is widely distributed free of charge to individuals upon request and automatically sent to libraries, universities and state agencies. In addition, to introduce the consequences of the judgment to the authorities and public, it was discussed both on television and in seminars involving competent officials and authorities.

It may also be recalled that the P enal Code, which was retrospectively applied in the applicant ' s case, is no longer in force and that a new P enal Code entered into force on 1 September 2002.

Conclusion

The Government of Estonia considers that in view of these developments, full satisfaction has been given to the applicant and that there no longer exists any risk of new violations similar to those found in this case. Therefore Estonia has fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.