Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
A.B. against the Netherlands

(Application No. 37328/97, judgment of 29 January 2002, final on 29 April 2002)

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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

 Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern unjustified interference with the applicant’s correspondence by prison authorities of the Netherlands Antilles between 1997 and 1998, and the lack of an effective remedy as regards his right to respect for his correspondence and also as regards the conditions of his detention (violations of Articles 8 and 13) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
 - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)103

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
A.B. against the Netherlands

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the control of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights by prison authorities of the Netherlands Antilles between 1997 and 1998. The case also concerns interference with the applicant’s correspondence with his lawyer, who was a former inmate. The Court found that the complete ban that existed on correspondence with former fellow inmates could not be justified (violations of Article 8).

Lastly, the case concerns the fact that the applicant had no effective remedy against the conditions in which he was detained or against the interference with his correspondence, since the authorities did not adequately implement the relevant judicial orders, as well as the urgent recommendations of the  Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“”) (violation of Article 13).

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a)  Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
-	3 500 EUR	-	3 500 EUR	
Paid on 05/04/2002	

b) Individual measures

The applicant was released on 27/02/1998, having served his prison sentence. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

The regulations governing the prison system of the Netherlands Antilles were changed after the facts of this case, notably with the introduction on 06/08/1999 of the National Decree containing general measures and adopting the Prison Rules 1999.These provisions seem to remedy the violations of Article 8 found by the Court. Article 26 of this Decree states that correspondence with anyone who is entitled to take cognisance of complaints or to hear cases following a complaint shall not be subject to scrutiny and shall not be opened without the inmate’s written consent. Furthermore, the blanket provision banning all correspondence with former inmates was lifted (Article 25 of the Decree).

The violation of Article 13 also seems to have been remedied, since the judgment of the Court was communicated to the Netherlands Antilles penitentiary authorities, drawing their attention to the need to secure adequate implementation of judicial orders aiming at improving the shortcomings of penitentiary facilities, in order to prevent violations similar to those found in the present case. In addition, the report by the CPT on the Netherlands Antilles (concerning their visit of February 2002) is significantly more positive than the earlier reports and the urgent recommendations made in this report were implemented relatively quickly. Furthermore, the report by the CPT on the Netherlands Antilles of 2007 indicates that various improvement plans have been drawn up in the context of the Netherlands Antilles Security Plan which are intended to implement a sustained improvement of the administration of the prison system among other things. The State Secretary of the Interior and Kingdom Relations promised an additional amount of 9.5 million EUR for the prison system on the Netherlands Antilles. This amount has been made available to resolve the issues raised by the CPT. Finally, semi-annual reports are submitted by two independent experts.

Lastly, the judgment of the European Court was published in sevaral legal journals in the Netherlands, in particular, the Nederlands Juristenblad(2002, 359) NJCM-Bulletin (2002, 1033), European Human Rights Cases (2002, 23) and Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (2002, 619).

	III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Netherlands has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.