Annual Report on the Execution
of Judgments
24. In March 2008, the Committee of Ministers
published its first Annual Report on the Supervision of the Execution
of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.[36]
This helpful new document is designed to increase transparency
and includes a review of the work of the Committee of Ministers
during 2007. It includes a useful series of statistics on state
performance on the execution of judgments and an issue-by-issue
discussion of cases considered during the year. We suggest that
some minor changes, such as an executive summary and a state-by-state
review of cases monitored during the year would increase the accessibility
and utility of the Annual Report and would make it more user friendly
for stakeholders in Contracting States.
25. The figures for the UK appear to present
a relatively positive picture of the Government's approach to
the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
For example:
- In 2007, the Committee of Ministers
noted that a significant number of cases against the UK had been
discharged from substantive scrutiny, either by way of final resolution
or by indicating that a final resolution was awaited (12% of all
cases awaiting final resolution in 2007 were cases against the
UK);
- The Committee of Ministers closed 28 cases against
the United Kingdom during 2007; and[37]
- The UK made payment in cases where just satisfaction
was awarded within the appropriate deadline in 96% of cases.
26. It is encouraging to note that the proportion
of new cases against the United Kingdom examined in 2007 was relatively
low, and that the majority of new cases raised questions about
isolated breaches of the Convention (these are cases thought by
the Committee of Ministers' Secretariat to be linked closely to
the individual circumstances of a case and raising no new systemic
problems). We
are encouraged that the statistics prepared by the Committee of
Ministers appear to show that the United Kingdom takes a relatively
positive approach to its Convention obligation to implement the
judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
27. However, the picture is not entirely positive.
At the end of 2007, there were 30 UK cases subject to the supervision
of the Committee of Ministers (excluding those which had been
closed, pending a final resolution). Although this represents
a tiny proportion of the work of the Committee of Ministers (0.55%
of its current workload), half of these are leading cases that
raise new systemic issues. In those 15 cases, the Government
may need to reform domestic law, practice or policy to remove
a breach of the Convention that has a continuing effect on the
rights of people in the United Kingdom.
28. It is also disappointing to note that the
United Kingdom is one of the top ten States for delay in respect
of leading cases where such measures are necessary. The most
disappointing statistic to emerge from the Report is that the
United Kingdom has the highest proportion of leading cases waiting
for an acceptable resolution for longer than five years.[38]
Only Italy and Turkey have a higher number
of leading cases outstanding for longer than five years.[39]
Delays of upwards of five
years in resolving the most significant breaches of the European
Convention are unacceptable unless extremely convincing justification
for the delay can be provided. We
call on the Government to publish its response to the Annual Report
of the Committee of Ministers on the Supervision of the Execution
of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In that
reply, we recommend that the Government explain the reasons for
any delay in relation to the introduction of general measures
in each of the cases which have been subject to the supervision
of the Committee of Ministers for longer than five years.
21 
