Ministers’ Deputies

Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2012)1136     13 March 2012



1136th meeting (DH), 6-8 March 2012

Decisions adopted

Volume of Resolutions



CONTENTS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1 6
Eigenstiller case against Austria 6

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2 8
European University Press GmbH against Austria 8

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3 10
Krumpholz against Austria 10

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4 12
Jafarli and others against Azerbaijan 12

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)5 14
Claes against Belgium 14

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)6 17
Tillack against Belgium 17

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)7 20
Cottin against Belgium 20

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)8 23
Leschiutta and Fraccaro against Belgium 23

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)9 28
Wynen against Belgium 28

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)10 32
Jeličić and three other cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina 32

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)11 36
Bistrović against Croatia 36

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12 38
Lesjak against Croatia 38

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13 40
Trgo against Croatia 40

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)14 42
Orlić against Croatia 42

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)15 44
Bernobić against Croatia 44

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16 46
Ismeta Bačić case against Croatia 46

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17 49
Zirovnicky against the Czech Republic 49

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)18 51
Suda against the Czech Republic 51

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19 53
Crabtree against the Czech Republic 53

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)20 55
5 cases against the Czech Republic 55

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21 58
Macready against Czech Republic 58

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22 61
Marttinen against Finland 61

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)23 63
Suuripää against Finland 63

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)24 65
7 cases against France 65

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)25 66
Paradysz against France 66

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)26 67
two cases against France 67

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)27 70
Chaudet against France 70

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)28 71
Ravon and others, Kandler and others, Société IFB and Maschino against France 71

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)29 74
2 cases against Georgia 74

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)30 75
Tritsis against Greece 75

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)31 78
Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis against Greece 78

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)32 81
Markoulaki (No. 1) against Greece 81

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)33 83
Tsotsos against Greece 83

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)34 85
Zeibek against Greece 85

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)35 87
Fawsie and Saidoun against Greece 87

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)36 88
5 cases against Hungary 88

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)37 89
2 cases against Latvia 89

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)38 90
Popa against the Republic of Moldova 90

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)39 91
Petru Jestcov against the Republic of Moldova 91

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)40 92
Tănase against the Republic of Moldova 92

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)41 95
Siewnath against Netherlands 95
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)42 96
82 cases against Poland 96

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)43 99
Bruczyński against Poland 99

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)44 102
14 cases against Portugal 102

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)45 103
Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves No. 4 against Portugal 103

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)46 106
Albert against Romania 106

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)47 108
2 cases against Romania 108

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)48 109
Stanca Popescu against Romania 109

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)49 112
2 cases against San Marino 112

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)50 113
E.S. and others against the Slovak Republic 113

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)51 115
DMD group, A.S against the Slovak Republic 115

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)52 118
Zubal’ against the Slovak Republic 118

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)53 120
Lexa against Slovak Republic 120

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)54 123
Lawyers Partners a.s against the Slovak Republic 123

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)55 126
Kvasnica against the Slovak Republic 126

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)56 128
K.H. and others against the Slovak Republic 128

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)57 130
Hudáková against the Slovak Republic 130

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)58 133
Hajduova against the Slovak Republic 133

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)59 136
110 cases against the Slovak Republic 136

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)60 146
2 cases against Spain 146

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)61 150
Gsell against Switzerland 150

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)62 153
Paşaoğlu against Turkey 153
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)63 155
51 cases against Turkey 155

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)64 157
Allen against the United Kingdom 157

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)65 160
M.A.K and R.K against the United Kingdom 160

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)66 163
A.D and O.D against the United Kingdom 163

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)67 166
Financial Times Ltd and others against the United Kingdom 166

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)68 168
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi against the United Kingdom 168

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)11

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Eigenstiller case against Austria

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

Eigenstiller (42205/06)

14/10/2010

14/01/2011

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(2011)282 - see below);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

      DECIDES to close its examination thereof.

Eigenstiller case against Austria

Action Report

Payment:

Date:

The amount of 10.200 EURO has been paid to the applicant in due time (the judgment became final on 14/01/2011)

22/02/2011

Dissemination and publication:

Date:

The Judgment has been sent to the Federal Chancellor’s office and to the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMeiA-AT. 8.19.06/0517-I.7/2010).

The circular note of 3 June 2011 of the Federal Chancellery was addressed to all Federal Ministries, the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court, the Supreme Court, the Asylum Court, Parliament, the Governments of all 9 Austrian “Länder” , the Liaision Office of the Länder with the Federal Authorities, all Human Rights Coordinators of the Federal Ministries, all Independent Administrative Panels of the Länder, as well as all Directorates-General of the Federal Chancellery (Prime Minister’s Office) analysing the European Court's of Human Rights case-law regarding Article 6 and Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as Article 35 para. 3 lit. b. The present case was among the cases analysed in this circular note, which therefore have been disseminated also by this means to the relevant authorities.

Furthermore the circular note has also been published on the Federal Chancellery's homepage and can be downloaded at: http://www.bka.gv.at/site/3465/default.aspx

20/10/2010

03/06/2011

General measures:

Date:

Given the circumstances of the case, which make it a solitary incident, no further General Measures are necessary.

-

Individual measures:

Date:

Since the District Court has already dissolved the marriage between the applicant and his former wife, no further Individual Measures seem necessary.

-

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)23

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

European University Press GmbH against Austria

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”)4,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

European University Press GmbH (36942/05)

24/06/2010

24/09/2010

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(2011)213 - see below);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close its examination thereof.

European University Press GmbH against Austria

Action Report

Payment:

Date:

The amount of 3.000 EURO has been paid to the applicant in due time (the judgment became final on 24/09/2010

19/10/2010

Publication:

Date:

An analysis of the case has been disseminated by means of Circular Note BKA-670.311/0023-V/5/2010 of 22 September 2010 to

    - all Federal Ministries,

    - the Constitutional Court,

    - the Administrative Court,

    - the Supreme Court,

    - the Asylum Court,

    - Parliament,

    - the governments of all nine Austrian Länder,

    - the Liaison Office of the Länder with the federal authorities,

    - all human rights co-ordinators at the federal ministries,

    - all independent administrative panels of the Länder, as well as

    - all directorates-general of the Federal Chancellery.

It has also been published on the homepage of the Prime Minister’s Office (Federal Chancellery) at: http://www.bka.gv.at/site/3465/default.aspx)

22/09/2010

General measures:

Date:

Given the circumstances of the case, no further General Measures seem necessary, as the wide dissemination of the judgment clearly sets out the European Court’s of Human Rights stance on the matter, so that future similar violations will be avoided.

 

Individual measures:

No further Individual Measures seem necessary (please note that the ECtHR itself in para 36 of the judgment “cannot discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged.”)

Date:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)35

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Krumpholz against Austria

(Application No. 13201/05, judgment of 18/03/2010, final on 18/06/2010)

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 the applicant's right to silence and the presumption of innocence (violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2) (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(2012)3

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Krumpholz against Austria

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to silence and the presumption of innocence as a result of a penal order by the Independent Administrative Panel in 2003 issued against him for exceeding the speed limits because the Panel drew inferences from the applicant’s refusal to disclose the identity of the driver and because of the lack of sufficient procedural safeguards (violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2). The Court considered that the Panel should have held a hearing of its own motion if it wished to draw inferences from the applicant’s silence so as to question him and obtain a direct impression of his credibility.

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

-

7 000 EUR

7 000 EUR

Paid on 15/09/2010

b) Individual measures

The Court rejected the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage as the Court could not speculate what would have been the outcome of the proceedings if they had satisfied the Convention's requirements. As the applicant submitted no claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court made no award under that head either. No other individual measure except for the payment of costs and expenses was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

The judgment was translated and published in ÖJZ 2010, p. 782 and Newsletter Menschenrechte 2/2010. Dissemination to the domestic authorities was done via the usual Circular Note of the Federal Chancellery of 22 September 2010, which was also published on the website of the Prime Minister’s Office (http://www.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=40733). A separate dissemination was done, inter alia, to the Independent Administrative Panel on 23 March 2010.

The Austrian authorities have indicated that this case was of an isolated nature and that no similar cases had come to their attention, nor was any similar complaint communicated by the Court.

In view of the above, no further general measure was deemed necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Austria has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in the present case.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)46

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Jafarli and others against Azerbaijan

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”)7,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Jafarli and others (36079/06)

29/07/2010

21/02/2011

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(2012)132 - see below);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Action Report

Jafarli and others v. Azerbaijan

Application no. 36079/06

The Court held that the delay in the execution of the judgment of the Local Economic Court No. 1, dated 9 July 2002 was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction and, accordingly, the Court considered that there was no call to award them any sum on that account.

Individual measures

In the period from March to August 2006, the judgment of Local Economic Court No. 1, dated 9 July 2002, was fully executed and the total amount of AZM 319,183,067 was paid into the bank account that the Cooperative held at the Kapital Bank. This fact has been acknowledged by the Court (§ 20 of the Judgment).

General measures

The judgement has been translated and published in the “Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights” in Azerbaijani language.

It has to be noted that, among the cases concerning non-enforcement of domestic court judgments, two group of cases – group of Mirzayev cases and group of Tarverdiyev cases – are under enhanced supervision of the Committee of Ministers.

The Mirzayev group of cases relate to non-enforcement of the domestic court judgments concerning illegal occupation by ID Ps of properties owned by other persons. The difficulties in enforcement of such judgments relate to the large number of IDPs (approximately 800,000) and the absence of relevant infrastructure for their housing. The Government have already informed the Committee of Ministers about the actions undertaken in respect of these cases.

The Tarverdiyev group of cases relate to non-enforcement of domestic court judgments concerning re-instating the applicants in their jobs. Deficiency of the enforcements of these rulings is due to dissolution of the positions previously occupied by the applicants.

In sum, these groups of cases relate to systematic problems, which do not appear to exist in the present case, as it concerns the budgetary allocations to single military unit in order to execute the relevant judgment.

Accordingly, the Government ask the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of this case.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)58

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Claes against Belgium

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”)9,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Claes (46825/99)

02/06/2005

02/09/2005

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(2012)192 - see below);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

BILAN D’ACTION

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
Claes et autres c. Belgique

(Requêtes n°46825/99, n°47132/99, n°47502/99, n°49010/99, n°49104/9949

et n°49195/99, arrêt du 2 juin 2005)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

Les requérants sont 6 ressortissants belges et un ressortissant français, qui ont tous fait l’objet de poursuites pénales pour des infractions liées à l’attribution de marchés publics (cf. « affaire Agusta-Dassault »). Il s’agit de W. C., ancien secrétaire général de l’OTAN et ministre d’Etat, C., ancien membre de la Chambre des représentants et ancien ministre, A. P., L. W., A. M. H., J. D. ainsi que S.D., seul ressortissant français de l’affaire.

Soupçonné d’avoir, en 1988, favorisé une société dans l’attribution d’un marché d’achat à une société italienne d’hélicoptères destinés à l’armée belge en contre partie du versement par la société d’une somme d’argent au parti socialiste, G. C. fit l’objet de poursuites pénales pour corruption. W. C. fut aussi poursuivi notamment pour corruption pour avoir, en 1989, favorisé une société dans le cadre de l’attribution d’un marché concernant l’acquisition de systèmes de contre-mesures électroniques pour des avions de la force aérienne belge, moyennant toujours le versement d’une commission au parti socialiste et au Socialistische Partij. A cette époque, par exception aux règles de droit commun du droit pénal, la législation en matière de responsabilité pénale des ministres prévoyait la compétence de la Cour de cassation pour les juger ; cette règle fut donc appliquée à G. C. et W.C. en tant qu’anciens ministres. Les autres requérants, qui ne furent jamais ministres, furent également cités à comparaître devant la Cour de cassation en raison de la connexité des faits. Par un arrêt du 23 décembre 1998, la Cour de cassation condamna W. C. à 3 ans d’emprisonnement avec sursis pour avoir favorisé, à deux reprises, un soumissionnaire pour avantager financièrement un parti dont il était un important responsable, et elle infligea 2 ans de prison avec sursis à G. C.. En outre, la Cour de cassation condamna A. P. à une peine d’emprisonnement de 2 ans avec sursis et Messieurs L. W., A. M. et J. D. à 2 ans, avec sursis, pour la partie qui excédait la durée de la détention préventive. Quant à S. D., la Cour de cassation le condamna à 18 mois d’emprisonnement avec sursis et ordonna la confiscation de 51.331.981 francs belges et de 10.000.000 francs français.

En l’espèce, à l’unanimité, la Cour conclut à la non-violation de l’article 6 (droit à un procès équitable) de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme envers W.C et G. C. mais elle conclut à la violation de l’article 6§1 de la Convention à l’encontre de A. P., L. W., A. M. H., J. D. et S.D., du fait de l’extension de la juridiction de la Cour de cassation (article 103 de la Constitution) à ceux-ci, en application de la règle de connexité. En revanche, la Cour juge qu’il n’y a pas violation de l’article 6§2 (présomption innocence) de la Convention pour A. P.

II. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable et mesures individuelles

a. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

En l’espèce, la Cour a dit qu'à défaut de faire droit à une demande des requérants A. P., L. W. et J. D. d'être rejugés ou de rouvrir la procédure, l'Etat belge doit leur verser, dans les 3 mois à compter du jour où : 1) le requérant signalera ne pas vouloir présenter une telle demande ou 2) qu’il apparaîtra qu'il n'en a pas l'intention ou 3) à compter du jour où une telle demande serait rejetée, 7.500 Euros pour dommage moral à chacun ; en outre, la Cour a dit que l’Etat belge doit leur verser 8.000 Euros pour frais et dépens à chacun. Concernant les deux autres requérants, A. M. H. et S.D., la Cour ne leur a rien alloué, faute d’avoir présenté devant elle une demande de satisfaction équitable.

L’attention des requérants a été attirée sur l’alternative qu’offrait cet arrêt de la Cour du 2 juin 2005 entre la réouverture de la procédure pénale et le paiement de la satisfaction équitable. A. P. a renoncé, par lettre du 6 septembre 2006 adressée à l’Agent du gouvernement, à demander la réouverture de la procédure pénale et il a reçu le paiement de sa satisfaction équitable le 15 novembre 2006 (donc avant le délai d’expiration des trois mois à compter du jour où A. P. a signalé ne pas vouloir introduire de demande de réouverture de la procédure pénale).

Les deux autres requérants, L. W. et J. D., ont sollicité le paiement de la satisfaction équitable (le premier le 16 août 2006 et le deuxième le 29 août 2006), en précisant qu’ils ne renonçaient pas à introduire de demande de réouverture de la procédure, quand la possibilité existerait. Ils ont reçu chacun 15.500 Euros les 15 et 23 novembre 2006 et ils n’ont finalement pas demandé de rouvrir leur procédure pendant le début de l’année 2008, comme leur permettait l’article 13 de la loi du 1er avril 2007 concernant la réouverture de la procédure en matière pénale. Ainsi, le paiement de ces deux requérants est aussi intervenu dans les délais (bien avant l’expiration du délai des trois mois à compter du jour où il est apparu certain qu’ils n’introduiraient plus de requête de réouverture de leur procédure pénale, c’est-à-dire à la fin du mois de mai 2008).

b. Mesures individuelles

En vertu de l’article 13 de la loi du 1er avril 2007 sur la réouverture de la procédure en matière pénale suite à un arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (entrée en vigueur de la loi le 1er décembre 2007 – l’article 13 prévoit un délai de 6 mois pour introduire les demandes de réouverture relatives à des arrêts antérieurs de la Cour européenne), les cinq requérants, qui ont été reconnus victimes d’une violation de la Convention par la Cour – soit A. P., L. W., A. M. H., J. D. et S.D. – ont pu demander la réouverture des procédures litigieuses. Pour rappel, A. P. a renoncé à cette possibilité par courrier. Quant aux autres requérants, à la connaissance du Gouvernement belge, ils n’ont, en définitive, pas utilisé cette possibilité légale. L’adoption d’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est nécessaire, selon l’Etat belge, dans cette affaire.

III. Mesures générales

a. Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt Claes et autres du 2 juin 2005 est disponible sur le site internet Juridat de la Cour de cassation (htpp://jure-intro.juridat.just.fgov.be). L’arrêt a également été transmis au Procureur général de la Cour de cassation pour information.

b. Evolution conforme de la législation depuis les faits de l’espèce

La Cour rappelle que, dans son arrêt Coëme et autres, elle a estimé que si l’article 103 de la Constitution prévoyait à titre exceptionnel le jugement des ministres par la Cour de cassation, aucune disposition ne prévoyait la possibilité d’étendre la juridiction de celle-ci, pour des faits connexes, à des personnes qui n’ont jamais exercé les fonctions de ministres. Les articles 226 et 227 du code d'instruction criminelle et les enseignements de la doctrine et jurisprudence ne permettaient pas, à eux seuls, de considérer que la connexité était, dans la situation en cause, « prévue par la loi » (§41). En l’absence donc de connexité prévue par la loi, la Cour estime que la Cour de cassation n’était pas, en l’espèce, un tribunal « établi par la loi » selon l’article 6 pour examiner les poursuites contre les cinq autres requérants qui ne furent jamais ministres. De ce fait, elle conclut à la violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention (§42).

Une législation spéciale a été adoptée le 25 juin 1998 (entrée en vigueur le 1 er juillet 1998) en vue de résoudre, expressément, la question litigieuse de la « connexité ». Cette loi ne s’est pas appliquée dans la procédure en cause de la présente affaire, bien que celle-ci n’ait été tranchée que fin 1998 (arrêt de la Cour de cassation du 23 décembre 1998) ; cela résultait expressément d’une disposition transitoire de la loi.

A présent, l’article 29, alinéa 1, de la loi du 25 juin 1998 mentionne que « les coauteurs et les complices de l'infraction pour laquelle le ministre est poursuivi et les auteurs des infractions connexes sont poursuivis et jugés en même temps que le ministre ». Il a déjà été pris acte de cette évolution législative dans l’arrêt Claes et autres du 2 juin 2005 (§27), dans l'arrêt Coëme et autres, ainsi que dans la résolution finale concernant ce dernier arrêt (ResDH(2001)164).

Selon l’Etat belge, aucune autre mesure générale ne s’impose. En effet, la source de violation, en l’espèce, résidait dans l’absence de fondement légal aux poursuites des 5 requérants devant la Cour de cassation. Or, ce problème a été résolu par la nouvelle loi du 25 juin 1998 précitée.

IV. Conclusions

Au vu des informations transmises dans le présent Bilan d’action, les autorités belges estiment avoir répondu à toutes les exigences de l’arrêt Claes et autres du 2 juin 2005. En effet, aucune autre mesure générale ne s’impose en l’espèce, tandis que les cinq requérants ont bénéficié de mesures individuelles de réparation suffisantes. Dès lors, l’Etat belge demande au Comité des Ministres de bien vouloir clôturer la présente affaire.

Bruxelles, le 8 février 2012

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)610

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Tillack against Belgium

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”)11,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Tillack (20477/05)

27/11/2007

27/02/2008

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(2012)28rev - see below);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

BILAN D’ACTION

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

TILLACK c. Belgique(Requête no 20477/05, arrêt du 27 novembre 2007, définitif le 27 février 2008)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

En février et mars 2002, le requérant (un journaliste) publia dans le Stern deux articles écrits à partir de documents confidentiels de l'Office européen pour la lutte anti-fraude (l’O.L.A.F.). Soupçonnant le requérant d’avoir corrompu un fonctionnaire en lui versant 8 000 EUR en échange d'informations confidentielles relatives à des enquêtes en cours au sein des institutions européennes, l’O.L.A.F. ouvrit une enquête interne afin d'identifier l’auteur de ces divulgations. Cette enquête n’ayant pas abouti à l’identification de l’agent à l’origine des fuites, l’O.L.A.F. déposa, en février 2004, une plainte contre le requérant auprès des autorités judiciaires belges lesquelles ouvrirent une instruction contre X pour violation du secret professionnel et corruption active et passive de fonctionnaire. Le 19 mars 2004, le domicile et le bureau du requérant furent perquisitionnés; la quasi-totalité des documents et instruments de travail de l’intéressé furent saisis et mis sous scellés (16 caisses de documents, deux boîtes d'archives, deux ordinateurs, quatre téléphones portables et un meuble métallique). Le requérant demanda vainement la mainlevée des mesures de saisie.

Invoquant l’article 10, le requérant soutenait que les perquisitions et saisies opérées à son domicile et à son bureau ont emporté violation de son droit à la liberté d'expression.

La Cour relève que cette ingérence dans la liberté d’expression avait une base légale et un but légitime. En revanche, sur le point de savoir si une telle ingérence était « nécessaire dans une société démocratique », la Cour relève notamment qu’au moment où les perquisitions eurent lieu, il est évident qu’elles avaient pour but de dévoiler la provenance des informations relatées par le requérant dans ses articles. Les mesures tombaient donc dans le domaine de la protection des sources journalistiques. A cet égard, la Cour souligne que le droit des journalistes de taire leurs sources ne saurait être considéré comme un simple privilège qui leur serait accordé ou retiré en fonction de la licéité ou de l'illicéité des sources, mais un véritable attribut du droit à l'information, à traiter avec la plus grande circonspection. Ceci vaut encore plus en l'espèce, où le requérant était soupçonné sur le fondement de vagues rumeurs non étayées, ce qui s'est confirmé par la suite par le fait qu’il ne fut pas inculpé. La Cour tient également compte de l’ampleur de la saisie opérée en l’espèce. Pour conclure, la Cour estime que si les motifs invoqués par les juridictions belges peuvent passer pour « pertinents », ils ne peuvent être jugés « suffisants » pour justifier les perquisitions incriminées. Elle conclut donc à la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention.

II. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable et mesures individuelles

a. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

Dommage matériel

Dommage moral

Frais & dépens

Total

 

10 000 euros

30 000 euros

40 000 euros

Payé le 14/05/2008

b. Mesures individuelles

En ce qui concerne le sort des objets saisis, le Parquet de Bruxelles confirme la restitution au requérant des pièces. Le Parquet confirme d’ailleurs également que l’instruction qui fut ouverte contre X du chef de violation du secret professionnel et de corruption active et passive d’un fonctionnaire a été clôturée par une décision de non-lieu prononcée le 6 janvier 2009 par la chambre du conseil.

Le gouvernement estime qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est nécessaire.

III. Mesures générales

a. Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt a été publié sur le site Juridat de la Cour de cassation (www.http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be). Il a également été communiqué au Collège des Procureurs généraux pour diffusion, notamment aux Procureurs du Roi et aux Juges d’instruction. L’arrêt a en outre fait l’objet de plusieurs publications dans des revues indépendantes (European Voice, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, Nullum Crimen, De Juristenkrant) et d’une question parlementaire (1 février 2008, question orale sur l’exécution de l’arrêt).

Adoption de la loi du 7 avril 2005 relative à la protection des sources journalistiques

Bien que la Cour indiquait, dans son arrêt du 27 novembre 2007, que les perquisitions au domicile et au bureau du requérant étaient prévues par la loi et poursuivaient un but légitime, elle jugeait qu’il n’y avait aucun impératif prépondérant d’intérêt public pouvant justifier de telles mesures. Les motifs invoqués par les juridictions nationales étant pertinents, ils ne pouvaient pas être jugés suffisants pour justifier les perquisitions incriminées. Les mesures étaient donc disproportionnées au but légitime.

A travers la loi du 7 avril 2005 relative à la protection des sources journalistiques - adoptée postérieurement aux faits qui sont à la base de l’arrêt du 27 novembre 2007 - la Belgique a renforcé le droit des journalistes et des collaborateurs de la rédaction de taire leurs sources d’information et, par conséquent, la liberté de presse et le droit à l’information. Une seule exception est prévue par la loi, notamment dans le but de prévenir la commission d’infractions constituant une menace grave pour l’intégrité physique d’une ou de plusieurs personnes. En revanche, cette exception est accompagnée par certaines conditions cumulatives et ne peut qu’être opérée à la requête du juge.

Cette loi a été favorablement accueillie, voir notamment : D. Voorhoof, « The protection of journalistic sources : recent developments and actual challenges » Droit des médias 2003/1, 7-23 ; J. Ceuleers, « De journalistieke bronnen wettelijk beschermd » Rechtskundig Weekblad 2005-2006 n°2, 48-52 ; K Lemmens, « La protection des sources journalistiques. Un commentaire de la loi du 7 avril 2005 », Journal des Tribunaux n°6198, 5 novembre 2005, 669-676.

Le gouvernement rappelle que le Comité des Ministres a clos l’affaire Ernst c. Belgique (33400/96, Résolution CM/ResDH(2010)39) sur la base de cette loi et estime par conséquent qu’aucune autre mesure générale n’est nécessaire.

IV. Conclusions

Au vu des informations transmises dans le présent Bilan d’action, les autorités belges estiment avoir répondu à toutes les exigences de l’arrêt TILLACK c. Belgique du 27 novembre 2007. En effet, cette affaire ne requiert plus l’adoption de mesures particulières, individuelles et/ou générales. Ainsi, l’Etat belge demande au Comité des Ministres de bien vouloir clôturer la présente affaire.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)712

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Cottin against Belgium

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”)13,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Cottin (48386/99)

02/06/2005

02/09/2005

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(2012)154 - see below);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

BILAN D’ACTION
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
Cottin c. Belgique (Requête n°48386/99, arrêt du 2 juin 2005)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

Le requérant, T. Cottin, est un ressortissant belge, né en 1972. A la suite d’une agression en décembre 1993, celui-ci fut cité à comparaître devant le tribunal correctionnel de Namur. Une expertise à laquelle l’intéressé n’assista pas, fut ordonnée pour décrire les blessures et lésions présentées par l’une des trois victimes et déterminer l’étendue du préjudice en ayant résulté. Par un arrêt du 27 novembre 1997, la cour d’appel de Liège, relevant notamment que selon l’expertise, l’une des victimes présentait des lésions avec incapacité permanente, condamna le requérant à deux ans d’emprisonnement avec sursis et à une amende. Le pourvoi en cassation du requérant contre cet arrêt fut rejeté le 24 novembre 1998.

En l’espèce, la Cour conclut, par quatre voix contre trois, à une violation de l’article 6§1 de la Convention (procès équitable, respect du principe du contradictoire), en raison de l’absence du requérant à l’expertise, l’ayant privé de la possibilité de contre-interroger, personnellement ou par le biais de son avocat ou d’un conseil médical, les personnes entendues par l’expert, de lui soumettre des observations sur les pièces examinées et les informations recueillies et de lui demander des investigations supplémentaires. En revanche, la Cour juge qu’aucune question distincte ne se pose au regard de l’article 14 de la Convention (interdiction de discrimination).

II. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable et mesures individuelles

a. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

Par quatre voix contre trois, la Cour a alloué au requérant 1.250 Euros pour dommage moral et 1.735 Euros pour frais et dépens. L’avocat du requérant a confirmé que ces sommes ont été payées par l’Etat belge en date du 27 septembre 2005.

b. Mesures individuelles

Le préjudice moral du requérant a été couvert par la satisfaction équitable. Quant à sa peine, le requérant a été condamné, par arrêt du 27 novembre 1997, à deux ans de prison avec sursis de trois ans. Cette peine n’a pas été exécutée et elle est prescrite depuis le 27 novembre 2002 (article 92 du Code pénal prévoyant une prescription de 5 ans pour les peines correctionnelles à compter de la décision définitive). Enfin, le droit belge permet de radier une condamnation pénale de son casier judiciaire : les condamnations à des peines de police (maximum six mois d'emprisonnement) sont automatiquement effacées après un délai de trois ans, tandis que tout condamné à des peines ne pouvant être effacées peut être réhabilité après un temps d'épreuve. La réhabilitation n'est pas automatique. Il appartient donc au requérant d'en faire la demande, selon la procédure prévue aux articles 621 et suivants du Code d'Instruction Criminelle.

III. Mesures générales

a. Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt Cottin est publié, depuis avril 2008, sur le site internet Juridat de la Cour de cassation (htpp://jure-intro.juridat.just.fgov.be). Par ailleurs, cet arrêt a été diffusé le 30 janvier 2006 au Procureur fédéral, au Procureur général auprès de la Cour de cassation ainsi qu’au Collège des Procureurs généraux, pour diffusion à tous les ressorts judiciaires du pays.

b. Evolution jurisprudentielle depuis les faits conformes aux exigences de l’arrêt

En l’espèce, même si le requérant pouvait formuler, devant la cour d'appel, des observations sur la teneur et les conclusions du rapport d'expertise, la Cour n’est pas convaincue qu'il avait là une vraie possibilité de le commenter efficacement. En effet, la question à laquelle l'expert était chargé de répondre se confondait avec l'une de celles relatives à la qualification pénale des faits. Or, elle ressortissait à un domaine technique échappant à la connaissance des juges. Bien que la cour d'appel ne fût pas juridiquement liée par les conclusions de l'expertise, cette dernière a donc dû influencer de manière prépondérante son appréciation des faits et conférer à l'opinion de l'expert un poids tout particulier (§31). Le requérant fut empêché de participer à l'expertise, alors que D.H, partie civile, a pu être assisté d'un conseil médical personnel. Ainsi, il n’a pu contre-interroger, lui-même ou via son avocat ou un conseil médical, les personnes entendues par l'expert, soumettre des observations sur les pièces examinées et informations recueillies et demander de faire des investigations supplémentaires.

La possibilité indirecte de discuter l’expertise dans des mémoires ou lors d'une des audiences d'appel ne peut passer pour un équivalent valable du droit de participer à la séance d'expertise. Ainsi, le requérant n'a pu commenter efficacement un élément de preuve essentiel et la demande d’une autre expertise n'y aurait rien changé puisqu’à l'époque, en droit belge, elle aurait aussi été unilatérale (§32). Le respect du droit à un procès équitable exigeait que le requérant pût soumettre efficacement ses commentaires sur un élément de preuve jugé essentiel à l’appréciation des faits. Or, il n’a pas eu cette possibilité. Partant, il y a une violation de l’article 6§1 de la Convention (§33).

Selon l’Etat belge, la source de la violation ne réside pas dans une législation mais dans les circonstances de l’espèce et la pratique jurisprudentielle antérieure de la Cour de cassation. En effet, la Cour remarque qu’aucune difficulté technique ne s’opposait à associer le requérant à l’expertise ; qu’elle touchait à un élément de preuve essentiel pour apprécier et qualifier les faits et ; que la possibilité de demander à la juridiction de fond une expertise complémentaire n’aurait rien changé puisqu’à l’époque, celle-ci aurait également été unilatérale.

Or, depuis l’affaire Cottin (arrêt cassation en 1998), la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation a changé puisqu’à présent, elle permet aux juridictions pénales de fond de décider du caractère contradictoire ou non des expertises qu’elles ordonnent, en prenant en compte les droits de la défense et les nécessités de l’action publique (§§ 22 à 25 de l’arrêt Cottin du 2 juin 2005). Pendant de très nombreuses années, la Cour de cassation a jugé que les expertises ordonnées par un juge pénal, contrairement aux expertises régies par le Code judiciaire, devaient avoir lieu de manière non contradictoire (§22). La Cour d'arbitrage s’est prononcée autrement dans son arrêt no 24/97 du 30 avril 1997, où elle estime que les dispositions du Code judiciaire sur l'expertise doivent s'appliquer à toutes les expertises ordonnées par le juge du fond mais qu’il faut écarter, en matière pénale, celles dont l'application n'est pas compatible avec les principes du droit répressif, c'est-à-dire celles se référant à l'accord des parties ou subordonnant certains effets à leur initiative (§23). La Cour de cassation, dans deux arrêts prononcés en 1998 (dont l'un dans la présente cause), a réaffirmé le caractère unilatéral des expertises pénales, jugeant que la convocation des parties aux opérations de l'expert est une règle dont l'application, en matière répressive, rendrait possible le développement d'un débat contradictoire en dehors de la présence du juge (§24). Enfin, la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation s'est rapprochée de celle de la Cour d'arbitrage depuis son arrêt du 8 février 2000, où elle a distingué selon que l'expertise ordonnée par le juge pénal tend au jugement de l'action publique ou ne porte que sur les intérêts civils. Elle a jugé que dans le premier cas, il appartient au juge d'en déterminer les modalités, compte tenu des droits de la défense et des exigences de l'action publique. Dès lors, l'expertise ne doit avoir lieu contradictoirement que pour autant que et dans la mesure où le juge a imposé, dans le libellé de la mission à l'expert, de l'accomplir contradictoirement. En revanche, dans le second cas, lorsque l'expertise ne concerne que les intérêts civils, la Cour de cassation a jugé qu'il y a lieu d'appliquer les articles 973 et 978 du Code judiciaire (§25).

Dans le cadre de l’exécution de l’arrêt Cottin, par un courrier du 14 octobre 2008, la Cour de cassation a confirmé à l’Agent du gouvernement que sa jurisprudence n’a pas changé depuis cet arrêt du 8 février 2000. Par ailleurs, suite à une récolte et une analyse de jurisprudence des cinq ressorts judiciaires du pays, il s’avère que de nombreuses expertises pénales se déroulent, dans les faits, selon les règles du contradictoire14. La jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation et les nombreux exemples de jurisprudence versés au dossier attestent, dès lors, de ce que le juge veille à ce que les expertises, en matière pénale, aient lieu selon les règles du contradictoire dans les cas où cela est nécessaire pour garantir le caractère équitable de la procédure dans son ensemble et, donc, en accord avec les principes jurisprudentiels de la Cour européenne.

IV. Conclusions

Au vu des informations transmises dans le présent Bilan d’action, les autorités belges estiment avoir répondu à toutes les exigences de l’arrêt Cottin c. Belgique du 2 juin 2005. En effet, tout particulièrement, au regard de l’évolution jurisprudentielle de la Cour de cassation, celle-ci est conforme, à présent, avec l’enseignement de l’arrêt. Par conséquent, l’Etat belge demande au Comité des Ministres de bien vouloir clôturer la présente affaire.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)815

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Leschiutta and Fraccaro against Belgium

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”)16,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Leschiutta and Fraccaro (58081/00)

17/07/2008

17/10/2008

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(2012)30 - see below);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

BILAN D’ACTION
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
Leschiutta et Fraccaro c. Belgique
(Requêtes n°58411/00 et n°58081/00, arrêt du 17 juillet 2008)

Résumé introductif de l’affaire

Les requérants, C.L. et L.F., sont des ressortissants italiens, pères respectivement d’A. et E., nés en 1995 et 1987, issus de leur relation avec la même femme, A.M. Ils se plaignent d’avoir été séparés de leurs enfants, emmenés par leur mère en Belgique, alors que deux décisions, en 1995 et en 1998, de tribunaux italiens leur en avaient attribué la garde. En décembre 1998, les juridictions belges accordèrent l’exequatur à ces décisions italiennes. Peu après, un huissier de justice accompagné par des policiers se déplacèrent au domicile d’A.M. pour tenter, en vain, d’exécuter la décision du tribunal belge. Les services sociaux belges établirent un rapport en février 1999 et deux rencontres pères-fils furent organisées en mai 1999 et avril 2000. A.M. fut condamnée à des peines de prison par les juridictions italiennes et belges pour enlèvement de ses fils. Elle se vit, néanmoins, confier, entre-temps, la garde des enfants par les tribunaux belges, les mineurs s’étant formellement opposés à leur retour en Italie chez leurs pères. En décembre 1999, les deux enfants furent confiés aux services sociaux belges. Les requérants se rendirent en Belgique, en juin 2000, pour chercher les enfants, et rentrèrent ensuite en Italie.

En l’espèce, la Cour conclut, à l’unanimité, à une violation de l’article 8 (droit au respect de la vie familiale) de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme, en raison de l’absence de mesures rapides, adéquates et suffisantes des autorités belges afin d’assurer l’exécution des décisions judiciaires octroyant aux deux requérants la garde de leur enfant respectif.

II. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable et mesures individuelles

a) Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

Dans cette affaire, la Cour a condamné l’Etat belge à payer à chacun des deux requérants la somme de 20.000 Euros, à titre de dommage moral, et 15.000 Euros, pour frais et dépens. Ces sommes ont été payées aux deux requérants, le 7 janvier 2009, soit dans les délais impartis par la Cour (mail de confirmation en ce sens de leur avocat du 29 novembre 2011).

b) Mesures individuelles

Dans la présente affaire, les autorités belges sont d’avis que l’arrêt du 17 juillet 2008 n’exige l’adoption d’aucune autre mesure individuelle que la satisfaction équitable donnée par la Cour aux requérants, leur dommage ayant été « consommé » (le retard mis par les autorités belges à réunifier les deux requérants avec leur enfant respectif).

Les autorités belges souhaitent rappeler, néanmoins, que les enfants ont finalement été remis, en juin 2000, à leur père respectif et ils sont rentrés avec eux en Italie. En octobre 2003, leur mère a récupéré l’autorité parentale sur E.F. Quant à la situation aujourd’hui de A.L., le seul enfant encore mineur, l’avocat des requérants a informé l’Etat belge, par mail du 29 novembre 2011, que celle-ci s’est stabilisée : garde conjointe des deux parents, habitation chez la mère en Italie et droit de visite du père respecté. Actuellement, il n’y a donc plus aucune procédure pendante sur la garde du mineur A.L., ni devant les juridictions belges, ni celles italiennes.

III. Mesures générales

a) Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt du 17 juillet 2008 a été publié sur le site internet Juridat de la Cour de cassation (htpp://jure-intro.juridat.just.fgov.be). Il a également fait l’objet d’une publication dans, à tout le moins, une revue spécialisée (De Juristenkrant, 30/09/2008). Enfin, l’arrêt a été diffusé, en son temps, à l’Autorité centrale belge en la matière qui dépend du SPF (service public fédéral) Justice. Eu égard aux modifications profondes depuis les faits de l’affaire relatives aux règles internationales applicables aux déplacements illicites d’enfants (voir l’explication ci-dessous), il n’a pas été jugé nécessaire de diffuser l’arrêt du 17 juillet 2008 à d’autres acteurs internes.

b) Pas besoin d’autres mesures générales : cas particulier et évolution des règles applicables depuis les faits

En l’espèce, la Cour a jugé que les autorités concernées ont négligé de mettre en œuvre toutes les mesures qu’on pouvait raisonnablement exiger d’elles afin d’assurer le retour des enfants auprès de leur père. En confortant les enfants dans leur refus de retourner vivre avec leur père, la passivité des autorités, cumulée avec l’inexorable écoulement du temps, aurait pu causer la rupture totale des relations enfant-père qui n’est aucunement à considérer comme étant dans l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant (§34). Partant, malgré la marge d’appréciation des Etats, la Cour a conclut que les autorités belges ont omis de déployer de façon rapide les efforts adéquats et suffisants pour faire respecter le droit des requérants au retour de leur enfant, méconnaissant leur droit au respect de la vie familiale garanti par l’article 8 de la Convention (§35).

Dans la présente affaire, la Cour critique particulièrement l’absence de tentatives réelles pour exécuter les décisions confiant la garde des enfants aux requérants (§§29 et 30). De plus, elle critique le fait que des décisions judiciaires contradictoires soient intervenues en Belgique, ainsi que le processus décisionnel ayant conduit à leur adoption (§§§ 31, 32 et 33).

Selon les autorités belges, ce genre d’arrêt de la Cour et de constat de violation est intimement lié aux circonstances propres de chaque affaire. Ainsi, en l’espèce, il s’agit d’une application in concreto des règles internationales et belges applicables au moment des faits (1998 à 2000). Or, il ressort que le temps mis à exécuter les décisions judiciaires en faveur des requérants et la contradiction survenue entre certaines décisions internes rendues sont exceptionnels (point i). De plus, il importe de préciser que les règles en la matière ont changé depuis les faits et que les nouvelles normes peuvent réduire, considérablement, la possibilité que des constats similaires au présent arrêt soient réitérés dans le futur (points ii et iii).

(i) Eléments de fait et spécificités du cas d’espèce

Suite au déplacement de leurs enfants respectifs de l’Italie vers la Belgique, les requérants ont saisi, en 1998, l’Autorité Centrale belge, par le biais de l’Autorité Centrale italienne, d’une demande basée sur la Convention de Luxembourg du 20 mai 1980 sur la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière de garde des enfants et le rétablissement de la garde des enfants, tendant à obtenir la reconnaissance et l’exécution en Belgique des décisions italiennes relatives à la garde de leurs enfants.

Cette Convention, adoptée dans le cadre du Conseil de l’Europe, établit des mesures destinées à faciliter la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions sur la garde d'un enfant et contient, notamment, des règles pour rétablir la garde des enfants, en cas d’interruption arbitraire.

L’article 5 de la Convention relatif aux obligations des Autorités Centrales prévoit notamment que « L'autorité centrale de l'Etat requis prend ou fait prendre dans les plus brefs délais toutes dispositions qu'elle juge appropriées, en saisissant, le cas échéant, ses autorités compétentes, pour [ ... ] assurer la reconnaissance ou l'exécution de la décision [ ... ] et assurer la remise de l'enfant au demandeur lorsque l'exécution de la décision est accordée [ ... ] ».

Dans le cadre de cette Convention, la demande d’exequatur, si elle est formulée par le biais de l'Autorité centrale, est présentée, auprès du Tribunal, par le Procureur du Roi territorialement compétent. Or, en l’espèce, la demande de reconnaissance et d’exécution avait été introduite par un avocat mandaté par les requérants sur base de la Convention de Bruxelles de 1968 sur la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale.

Ainsi, la procédure d’exequatur s’est déroulée hors du cadre de la Convention de Luxembourg du 20 mai 1980. L’exequatur a été obtenue en décembre 1998 mais les enfants n’ont été remis à leurs pères respectifs que le 30 juin 2000.

Ainsi, le présent cas d’espèce est très particulier, en raison du fait que la demande d’exequatur n’avait pas été présentée par l’intermédiaire de l’Autorité Centrale belge, mais par un avocat directement mandaté par les requérants. Or, s’ils avaient utilisé la Convention de Luxembourg et avaient introduit leur demande d’exequatur par le Procureur du Roi, via l’Autorité Centrale belge, cela aurait grandement facilité un rôle beaucoup plus actif dans le chef de ceux-ci pour garantir l’exécution des décisions.

(ii) Modification de la législation relative aux déplacements illicites d’enfants en raison de la ratification par la Belgique de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l'enlèvement international d'enfants

Le 9 février 1999, la Belgique a ratifié ladite Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980, qui est entrée en vigueur en date du 1er mai 1999. Ses éléments essentiels sont les suivants :

    · Le retour immédiat des enfants déplacés illicitement

« La Convention susvisée a pour objet essentiel d’assurer le retour immédiat des enfants de moins de 16 ans déplacés ou retenus illicitement dans tout Etat contractant et de faire respecter effectivement le droit de garde et le droit de visite.

La Convention est, à cet égard, complémentaire de la Convention de Luxembourg du 20 mai 1980 susvisée. Les buts poursuivis par ces deux Instruments internationaux sont identiques mais les techniques juridiques instaurées diffèrent.

Si la Convention de Luxembourg prévoit principalement une action en reconnaissance et en exécution des décisions portant sur la garde et le droit de visite, la Convention de La Haye institue quant à elle une action en remise de l’enfant déplacé ou retenu illicitement contre la volonté de son gardien. Cette dernière Convention met donc l’accent sur le retour immédiat de l’enfant dans l’Etat de sa résidence habituelle et ne suppose pas nécessairement l’existence d’une décision portant sur la garde »17.

Contrairement à la Convention Luxembourg, ce texte ne prévoit pas l’exequatur de décisions étrangères mais elle crée un mécanisme pour solliciter, directement auprès des juridictions de l’Etat sur le territoire duquel l’enfant a été déplacé, le retour immédiat de celui-ci au lieu de sa résidence habituelle. Le juge de l’Etat requis est donc amené à se prononcer sur la licéité du déplacement, sur base du droit applicable dans l’Etat de résidence habituelle de l’enfant18.

La demande de retour ne peut être refusée que dans un nombre d’hypothèses limitativement énumérées par la Convention19.

Conformément à l’article 1322quinquies du Code judiciaire belge, si la demande est formulée par l’intermédiaire de l'Autorité centrale désignée sur la base notamment de la Convention de La Haye, la requête est signée et présentée au président du Tribunal par le ministère public.

    · Suspension des procédures en cours quant au fond du droit de garde.

En outre, l’article 16 de la Convention de La Haye prévoit que « après avoir été informées du déplacement illicite d'un enfant ou de son non-retour dans le cadre de l'article 3, les autorités judiciaires ou administratives de l'Etat contractant où l'enfant a été déplacé ou retenu ne pourront statuer sur le fond du droit de garde jusqu'à ce qu'il soit établi que les conditions de la présente Convention pour un retour de l'enfant ne sont pas réunies, ou jusqu'à ce qu'une période raisonnable ne se soit écoulée sans qu'une demande en application de la Convention n'ait été faite ».

Cette disposition permet au Parquet saisi d’une demande de retour de solliciter, auprès du juge qui aurait été saisi parallèlement d’une demande sur le fond (droit de garde), la suspension de la procédure dans l’attente d’une décision sur le retour de l’enfant. Ce mécanisme permet d’éviter que des décisions quant au droit de garde ne soient rendues dans l’Etat de « refuge », alors qu’il n’a pas encore été statué sur le retour de l’enfant. Dans l’hypothèse où le retour est ordonné, le juge saisi sur le fond se déclare incompétent, la résidence habituelle de l’enfant étant considérée comme hors du territoire belge. A l’inverse, si le retour de l’enfant est refusé, la procédure introduite en Belgique peut suivre son cours.

Enfin, l’article 17 de la Convention indique, explicitement, que « Le seul fait qu'une décision relative à la garde ait été rendue ou soit susceptible d'être reconnue dans l'Etat requis ne peut justifier le refus de renvoyer l'enfant dans le cadre de cette Convention, mais les autorités judiciaires ou administratives de l'Etat requis peuvent prendre en considération les motifs de cette décision qui rentreraient dans le cadre de l'application de la Convention ».

(iii) Modification de la législation belge concernant l’exécution des décisions impliquant le retour d’enfants déplacés illicitement

Lors de la modification législative qui a suivi l’adoption du Règlement européen 2201/2003 relatif à la compétence, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière matrimoniale et de responsabilité parentale abrogeant le Règlement (CE) n°1347/2000, le législateur belge a adopté une disposition spécifique, à savoir l’article 1322undecies du Code judiciaire (http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2010031905&table_name=loi), afin de garantir l’exécution des décisions impliquant le retour de l’enfant et ce, pour se conformer à la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme20.

Ainsi, l’article 12 de la loi du 10 mai 2007 prévoit qu’« en ordonnant le retour d'un enfant, en application de l'article 12 de la Convention de La Haye [ ...], le président du tribunal fixe les modalités d'exécution de sa décision au regard de l'intérêt de l'enfant et désigne, si nécessaire, les personnes habilitées à accompagner l'huissier de justice pour l'exécution de celle-ci ».

Concrètement, cela signifie que, dans le cadre de la décision ordonnant le retour de l’enfant, le juge prévoit les modalités de remise de l’enfant au parent requérant. Il arrive qu’un huissier de justice soit mandaté par le juge, dans la décision elle-même, pour l’exécution. En outre, le recours à la force publique, si nécessaire, est généralement autorisé. L’Autorité Centrale et le Parquet du Procureur du Roi territorialement compétent sont amenés, dans certains cas, à collaborer activement en cas de difficultés de l’exécution des décisions de retour. Il arrive que des collaborateurs de l’Autorité Centrale assistent personnellement les services de police et les parents lors de la remise de l’enfant. Ceci n’est, cependant, possible que si la procédure de retour a été introduite par l’intermédiaire de l’Autorité Centrale belge.

Ainsi, en l’état actuel de la nouvelle législation, il ressort clairement qu’une situation similaire à celle de l’affaire Leschuitta et Fraccaro peut être évitée. En effet, en vertu de la Convention de La Haye, aucune demande d’exequatur n’aurait été introduite. En application de l’article 1322quinquies du Code judiciaire, le Parquet ou le représentant des deux requérants aurait introduit une requête tendant à obtenir le retour immédiat des enfants en Italie, en application, notamment, de l’article 12 de la Convention de La Haye. Par ailleurs, la suspension de toute procédure au fond introduite par la mère quant à la garde des enfants aurait été simultanément sollicitée. Cela aurait permis d’éviter des décisions contradictoires internes, tel que relevé par la Cour dans la présente affaire. Enfin, si le Tribunal avait prononcé le retour de l’enfant, le juge aurait pu prévoir les modalités d’exécution de la décision, en application de l’article 1322undecies du Code judiciaire. En cas de refus de la mère d’exécuter la décision, l’Autorité Centrale, si la demande avait été introduite par son biais, aurait pu prendre contact avec le Parquet compétent pour organiser « l’exécution forcée » de la décision. Enfin, à la demande du Parquet, un ou plusieurs collaborateurs de l’Autorité Centrale, dont le psychologue, auraient pu se rendre sur place afin d’assister les forces de police, en rappelant à chacun des parents le cadre légal sur base duquel la décision avait été rendue.

IV. Conclusions

Au vu des informations transmises dans le présent Bilan d’action, les autorités belges estiment avoir répondu à toutes les exigences de l’arrêt Leschuitta et Fraccaro c. Belgique du 17 juillet 2008. En effet, cette affaire ne requière plus l’adoption de mesures particulières, individuelles et/ou générales. Ainsi, l’Etat belge demande au Comité des Ministres de bien vouloir clôturer la présente affaire.

Bruxelles, le 23 décembre 2011

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)921

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Wynen against Belgium

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”)22,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Wynen (32576/96)

05/11/2002

05/02/2003

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(2012)157F);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

BILAN D’ACTION
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
Wynen et Centre hospitalier Interrégional Edith-Cavell c. Belgique
(Requête n° 32576/96, arrêt du 5 novembre 2002)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

Les requérants sont le docteur A. Wynen, ressortissant belge né en 1923, et son employeur, le Centre hospitalier Interrégional Edith Cavell (CHIREC, anciennement Institut médical Edith Cavell – l’IMEC), association sans but lucratif. En octobre 1990, un tomographe à résonance magnétique avec calculateur électronique intégré fut installé à l’I.M.E.C. Selon un arrêté royal de 1989, le service où un tel appareil est installé doit être considéré comme « service médico-technique lourd », au sens de l’article 44 de la loi coordonnée sur les hôpitaux, et être agréé.

L’I.M.E.C n’ayant pas l’agrément requis, les ministres de la Santé publique pour la région de Bruxelles-Capitale portèrent plainte, en mars 1991, contre Wynen. En janvier 1993, celui-ci et l’I.M.E.C., en tant que civilement responsable, furent cités devant le tribunal correctionnel. Ils furent acquittés mais la Cour d’appel de Bruxelles, statuant sur appel du ministère public et de l’Etat, partie civile à l’instance, condamna Wynen à une amende avec sursis et aux frais (soit 264,11 Euros), par application notamment des articles 37 à 42 et 44 de la loi susmentionnée. Soulevant l’illégalité et la non-constitutionnalité de son article 44, les requérants formèrent un pourvoi en cassation et demandèrent à la Cour de cassation de poser à la Cour d’arbitrage une question préjudicielle. La partie civile, défenderesse en cassation, déposa le 8 septembre 2005 un mémoire en réponse. Le 19 octobre, les requérants déposèrent un mémoire complémentaire avec de nouveaux moyens. Après inscription au tableau des causes au greffe, le 24 janvier 1996, la Cour de cassation tint une audience, où elle entendit notamment le représentant du ministère public. Les requérants ne furent pas représentés à l’audience. Le même jour, la Cour de cassation rejeta le pourvoi des requérants, après avoir, entre autres, déclaré leur mémoire complémentaire irrecevable pour tardivité en application de l’article 420bis, alinéa 2, du Code d’instruction criminelle (C.I.Cr.), selon lequel le demandeur en cassation ne peut produire de mémoire passé le délai de deux mois, à compter de l’inscription de la cause au rôle général, en l’espèce, le 14 février 1995.

Les requérants devant la Cour, sous l’angle de l’article 6§ 1 (droit à un procès équitable) de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme, se plaignaient de quatre griefs distincts.

En l’espèce, par quatre voix contre trois, la Cour a conclut à une violation de l’article 6§1 de la Convention à cause du rejet pour irrecevabilité du mémoire complémentaire des requérants.

En revanche, à l’unanimité, la Cour a rejeté les trois autres griefs des requérants concernant la convocation à l’audience de la Cour de cassation, la possibilité de répondre aux conclusions du ministère public et enfin, le refus de poser une question préjudicielle à la Cour d’arbitrage.

II. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable et mesures individuelles

a) Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

A l’unanimité, la Cour a jugé que le constat de violation a fourni une satisfaction équitable suffisante aux requérants. La Cour a condamné l’Etat belge à leur payer 5000 Euros pour frais et dépens. Faute des requérants d’avoir transmis dans les délais les données nécessaires pour leur verser cette somme, celle-ci a été consignée, le 1 er juillet 2003, à la Caisse des dépôts et consignations (SPF Finances). Un courrier du 27 mai 2003 adressé à ce sujet à l’avocat des requérants est, en effet, resté sans réponse. Suite à une lettre du SPF Finances du 12 juillet 2005 demandant au SPF Justice ce qu’il convient de faire avec cette somme, un rappel a été, le 2 août 2005, adressé à l’avocat des requérants, mais ce dernier est aussi resté sans réponse.

b) Mesures individuelles

Selon l’Etat belge, l’arrêt Wynen du 5 novembre 2002 n’exige, de la part des autorités belges, l’adoption d’aucune mesure individuelle. Comme rappelé par la Cour, on ne saurait spéculer sur l’issue de la procédure si celle-ci avait été conforme aux exigences de l’article 6§1 de la Convention (§47). Cependant, il importe de rappeler que selon la Cour, la Cour de cassation a dûment pris en compte les griefs des requérants relatifs à l’illégalité ou l’inconstitutionnalité de l’article 44 de la loi sur les hôpitaux (base de la condamnation), ainsi que leur demande de voir poser une question préjudicielle à la Cour d’Arbitrage.

La Cour de cassation s’est ensuite prononcée par une décision suffisamment motivée et n’apparaissant pas entachée d’arbitraire (§42). On peut également relever que la Cour de cassation, en dépit d’avoir rejeté le mémoire complémentaire des requérants, a cependant répondu aux moyens dans son arrêt du 26 janvier 1996. Le caractère léger de la peine des requérants (264,11 Euros) mérite aussi d’être souligné et par ailleurs, rien ne s’opposait à la régularisation de leur situation (solliciter l’agrément en vue d’utiliser le matériel médical en question). Enfin, suite à l’arrêt du 5 novembre 2002, les requérants n’ont jamais adressé de quelconque demande à l’Agent du Gouvernement belge.

Pour toutes ces raisons, et en particulier vu qu’il ne subsiste pas de doute véritable sur ce qu’aurait été l’issue de la procédure en l’absence de violation et vu le caractère minime de ce qui était en cause dans cette affaire, l’Etat belge estime qu’aucune mesure particulière individuelle ne doit être adoptée.

III. Mesures générales

a) Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt du 5 novembre 2002 a été publié sur le site internet du SPF Justice et, par la suite, sur le site Juridat de la Cour de cassation (htpp://jure-intro.juridat.just.fgov.be). En outre, l’arrêt a été rapidement diffusé au Procureur général de la Cour de cassation, le 8 novembre 2002.

b) Pas besoin d’autres mesures générales

La Cour a noté que l’article 420bis du C.I.Cr. oblige le demandeur en cassation à déposer tout mémoire dans les deux mois de l’inscription de la cause au rôle général, alors que la partie défenderesse (en l’espèce, la partie civile) n’est pas soumise à un délai comparable et, dans le cas présent, a mis près de cinq mois pour présenter son mémoire. Cela a eu pour conséquence de priver les requérants de la possibilité de répliquer par écrit à celui-ci, puisque leur mémoire complémentaire a été déclaré irrecevable comme tardif. Or, une telle possibilité peut s’avérer nécessaire, dès lors que le droit à une procédure contradictoire implique, pour une partie, la faculté de prendre connaissance des observations de l’autre, ainsi que de les discuter. La Cour reconnaît qu’il est nécessaire de ne pas prolonger inutilement les procédures par la faculté de répliques écrites successives aux mémoires déposés, mais à condition que cela ne crée pas de situation de net désavantage entre les parties. Or, selon le Cour, tel n’est pas le cas en l’espèce et partant, elle conclut à une violation, par quatre voix contre trois, de l’article 6§1 (§32).

Selon les autorités belges, l’arrêt Wynen du 5 novembre 2002 n’exige aucune mesure générale autre que sa publication et diffusion, dès lors que la situation dénoncée dans cette affaire reste un cas tout à fait isolé dans l’histoire procédurale de la Cour de cassation. Les autorités belges se réfèrent à ce sujet à un courrier de la Cour de cassation (point i) et à l’opinion dissidente du juge belge Lemmens qui rappelle très utilement les particularités de la procédure en cassation, bien connues de tous les praticiens du droit (point ii). Enfin, si par extraordinaire une situation de ce type devait se présenter à nouveau, il n'y a pas de raison de douter que le procureur général près la Cour de cassation veillerait à proposer une solution de nature à éviter une violation de la Convention par ladite Cour.

(i) Confirmation du caractère unique de l’affaire Wynen

Par un courrier du 21 décembre 2011, le Procureur général de la Cour de cassation a confirmé à l’Agent du Gouvernement belge le caractère tout à fait isolé de l’affaire Wynen, aucun cas similaire n’existant, à leur connaissance, avant ni/ou après l’arrêt de la Cour du 5 novembre 2002. Partant, celui-ci considère que cet arrêt isolé ne nécessite aucune mesure particulière à prévoir pour l’avenir. Les éléments principaux de ce courrier sont les suivants :

    · le dépôt d’un mémoire en réponse par un défendeur en cassation est exceptionnel en matière pénale ;

    · aucun magistrat du ministère public auprès de la Cour de cassation n’a connaissance de cas de répliques par écrit d’un demandeur en cassation au mémoire en réponse d’un défendeur ;

    · il est arrivé exceptionnellement qu’à l’audience, un avocat, dans son intervention orale (la plupart du temps en réplique aux conclusions du ministère public), évoque l’un ou l’autre point du mémoire en réponse du défendeur en cassation.

En outre, dans son courrier, le Procureur général de la Cour de cassation réfère aux opinions pertinentes des juges Lemmens, Thomassen et Jungwiert, faites à l’arrêt du 5 novembre 2002.

(ii) Rappel des particularités de la procédure en cassation – opinions dissidentes

Dans son opinion dissidente, le juge Lemmens explique bien les particularités de la procédure en cassation en Belgique qui permettent de comprendre pourquoi l’affaire Wynen constitue un cas tout à fait isolé. Ses extraits les plus pertinents sont reproduits ci-dessous.

    - Ce qui constitue un aspect fondamental de l’affaire, c’est que même des délais égaux n’auraient pas résolu le problème des requérants, qui est qu’en pratique, la procédure en cassation ne prévoit pas de mémoire en réplique. Si la loi n’exclut pas la possibilité d’en déposer un, elle n’existe en réalité que si le mémoire du demandeur mais aussi le mémoire en réponse du défendeur sont soumis bien avant l’échéance du délai de deux mois prévu pour le dépôt du mémoire à l’appui du pourvoi. En l’espèce, le défendeur en cassation n’ayant pas déposé son mémoire en réponse avant le 14 avril 1995 (pour rappel, le mémoire des requérants a été déposé la veille), dernier jour du délai de deux mois, il était impossible pour les requérants de remettre dans les règles un mémoire en réplique. Peu importe, donc, que le défendeur ait ou non déposé son mémoire dans un délai égal à celui dont avaient disposé les requérants.

    - Le fait que la procédure belge en cassation ne prévoit pas, en tant que tel, de mémoire en réplique s’explique par ses particularités. En effet, la Cour de cassation ne connaît pas du fond de l’affaire et sa compétence est limitée à l’examen de questions de droit. L’affaire est portée devant elle après que le fond du litige a déjà été débattu dans deux instances, où les parties ont pu déposer des conclusions. La Cour de cassation ne peut prendre connaissance que des moyens soulevés devant les juges du fond ou de moyens nouveaux d’ordre public qu’elle peut d’ailleurs soulever d’office. Pour ne pas allonger inutilement les procédures en cassation à la faveur de répliques écrites successives aux mémoires déposés, le demandeur doit donc invoquer tous ses moyens dans le mémoire à l’appui de son pourvoi et le défendeur doit invoquer toutes ses exceptions et moyens de défense dans le mémoire en réponse. En l’espèce, donc, le cadre du litige devant la Cour de cassation était connu d’avance des parties et rien n’empêchait les requérants de développer une argumentation complète dans leur mémoire initial, à l’appui de leur pourvoi, en veillant à anticiper l’argumentation de l’adversaire qui leur était largement connue pour se l’être vu opposer devant les juges du fond.

    - Enfin, il importe de rappeler que le demandeur en cassation peut, toujours, prendre la parole à l’audience et y développer les moyens déjà invoqués dans son mémoire, et ce faisant, répondre aux considérations juridiques du mémoire en réponse du défendeur. Or, en l’espèce, les requérants n’assistèrent pas à l’audience de la Cour de cassation et, pour rappel, la Cour a conclut à la non violation de la Convention au sujet de ce grief.

En outre, les opinions dissidentes des juges Thomassen et Jungwiert vont dans le même sens.

      (iii) Application directe de la Convention et de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne par la Cour de cassation

Les autorités belges soulignent, avant de conclure, que si l’affaire Wynen est unique et que les spécificités de la procédure en cassation expliquent qu’un cas similaire ne devrait pas se produire à nouveau, une garantie réside également dans le fait que la Cour de cassation applique directement la Convention et la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne. Elle serait par conséquent en mesure de prévenir une violation similaire si – ce qui ne devrait pas être le cas – une situation semblable devait se présenter. Pour un exemple récent d’application directe de la Convention, on peut voir (concernant une autre question) l’arrêt n° 2505 (P.09.0547.F) du 10 juin 2009 de la Cour de cassation, rendu après l’arrêt de Chambre dans l’affaire Taxquet c. Belgique.

IV. Conclusions

Au vu des informations transmises dans le présent Bilan d’action, les autorités belges estiment avoir répondu à toutes les exigences de l’arrêt Wynen c. Belgique du 5 novembre 2002. Celui-ci, en effet, ne requiert pas l’adoption de mesures particulières individuelles. En outre, aucune mesure générale autre que les mesures prises en vue de publier et diffuser cet arrêt ne s’impose non plus. L’Etat belge demande, donc, au Comité des Ministres de bien vouloir clôturer celle-ci.

Bruxelles, le 23 février 2012

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1023

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Jeličić and three other cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina

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”)24,

Having regard to the judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

 

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

1

Jeličić (41183/02)

31/10/2006

31/01/2007

2

Kudić (28971/05)

09/12/2008

09/03/2009

3

Pejaković (337/04+)

18/12/2007

18/03/2008

4

Pralica (38945/05)

27/01/2009

27/04/2009

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 each of the judgments listed in the table above;

Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report for each case provided by the government (see appendices);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)10

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Jeličić and three other cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina

No: 11-Ai-2/06 /) /11

Sarajevo, 5 September 2011

Mrs Genevieve Mayer,

Head of Department

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

Monitoring Directorate, Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Europe

Court of Human Rights,

Council of Europe

F-67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX

Action Report on the execution of judgement of the European Court of Human

Rights delivered on 31 October 2006

1. Convention violation found

In the judgment Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina the Court found the violation of right to access to court guaranteed in Article 6 of the Convention due to non-enforcement of final domestic judgment ordering the payment of old foreign currency savings to the applicant as well as the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the Convention.

2. Individual measures

As regards the individual measures, the Republika Srpska paid the whole savings to the applicant awarded by final domestic judgment as well as the non-pecuniary damage on 13 July 2007.

3. General measures

In addition to individual measures, the respondent party was obligated to implement general measures as well, primarily, by amending the legislation which hampered enforcement of final judgments, and then taking necessary actions to have all judgments of the same kind executed by final payments to creditors relating to old foreign currency savings.

A. Legislation amendments

Within the scope of general measures ordered in the Jeličić judgment, Article 27 of the Law on Settlement of Obligations arising from Old Foreign Currency Savings of BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, nos. 28/06, 76/06 and 72/07) has been amended. The new article specifies that the courts are obliged to submit final judgments to the ministries of finances on entity or other level for their settlement. The laws and by-laws of the entities (RS and FBiH) and Brčko District allowed the depositors also to submit the judgments to the relevant ministries of finance. This created a legal basis for enforcement of final judgments concerning old foreign currency savings.

B. Adoption and implementation of Action Plan and other general measures

Since the main portion of non-enforced judgments was in the Republika Srpska, while in the Federation and the Brčko District it was only in isolated cases, the Republika Srpska adopted the Action Plan for enforcement of the judgments concerning the old foreign currency savings. In the Federation and Brčko District where only isolated cases were registered, the Reports on enforcement were made.

1) Action Plan of the Republika Srpska for implementation of judgment concerning the old foreign currency savings

The procedure on enforcement of judgments concerning the old foreign currency savings in the Republika Srpska is prescribed by the Decree on verification of claims and cash payments Linder the old foreign currency savings in the RS (Official Gazette of the RS no. 102/06, 124/06, 17/07, 62/07, 105/07, 18/08, 20/09 and 21/10). Pursuant to Article 23 of this Decree, the courts and the creditors are obliged to submit the enforceable court judgments concerning the old foreign currency savings to the RS Ministry of Finance for enforcement.

The Government of the Republika Srpska at its 118th session adopted the Action Plan for implementation of court judgments concerning the old foreign currency savings in the Republika Srpska. In first stage of the Action Plan, the RS Ministry of Finance planned to register all judgments concerning old foreign currency savings submitted by the courts or creditors. In the second stage of the Action Plan, it was foreseen to have the creditors paid out under registered final and enforceable judgments and other measures.

2) Report on implementation of the RS Action Plan measures

The Ministry of Finance of the Republika Srpska so far registered 57 judgments relating to the old foreign currency savings in total amount of 5.667.140.70 KM, whereof the payments were made under 4 judgments in amount of 1.546.537.94 KM (stated in table no.1) before adoption of the Action Plan.

Out of total number of registered judgments, 27 judgments are ready for payment (table 2) whereof the payments in amount of 2.752.076.34 KM were made under 22 judgments, while payments in amount of 155.997.05 KM under 4 remaining judgments were found to be paid by the business bank and one judgment in amount of 14.121.03 KM designated as enforceable (earlier stated in table 2 and now in table 4) was paid out subsequently.

The payments under 5 (five) judgments indicated in table 3 in amount of 482.479.62 KM have not been made. These are the judgments where the authenticity of documents has to be checked and which are to be paid by the Ministry of Finance by 31 December 2011 at the latest.

The total of 13 (thirteen) judgments given in table 4, have been verified (see the Law on settlement of obligations arising from old foreign currency savings of BiH, former Article 27). Out of above given number, 7 (seven) judgments were enforced and the depositors paid up to 2.000.00 KM each, while the remaining debt was settled by the first issue of bonds on 28 February 2008. The debt under remaining 6 judgments was transferred to the privatization accounts. After the first issue of bonds, the 60% of the debt became due and paid out.

In the review process, five judgments stated in table 5 were quashed, two judgments stated in table 6 were forwarded for enforcement to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 1 judgment was forwarded for enforcement to the Brčko Distrikt (table no. 7).

3) Report on settlement of obligations under the judgments concerning old foreign currency savings in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Enforcement of the judgment relating to the old foreign currency savings in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is regulated by the Law on Settlement of Obligations arising from the Old Foreign Currency Savings in the Federation BiH (Official gazette of the FBiH, no. 62/09 and the Decision on enforcement of judgments relating to the old foreign currency savings (Official Gazette of the Federation BiH, no. 72/09).

The Federation settled in whole its obligation under the judgment submitted by the Basic Court of Banjaluka, no. P-8501/99 of 9 September 1999 in amount of 21.760.95 KM. The judgment of the Basic Court in Bihać, no. P-897/91 of 13 January 1992 in amount of 16.645.53 KM was not enforced because the addresses of the depositors were unknown. The checking has been underway in order to have this judgment enforced as well.

Apart from those two judgments submitted by the Ministry of Finance of the Republika Srpska to the Federal Ministry of Finance as the competent one, the enforcement procedure under the judgment of the Basic Court in Bugojno, no. P-2110/89 of 16 April 1999 has been underway in this ministry in amount of 99.624.83 KM. The details on claimed sums and the dates of their settlements in competence of the Federal Ministry of Finance are stated in the table titled -Overview of received and settled judgments in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning the old foreign currency savings-, which is attached to this document.

4) Report on settlement of obligations under the judgments relating to the old foreign currency savings in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Payments of old foreign currency savings under final judgments in Brčko District has been regulated by the Law on Settlement of Obligations arising from Old Foreign Currency Savings (Official Gazette of BiH, mos. 28/06, 76/06 and 72/07) and the Law on Settlement of Obligations under old foreign currency saving accounts by issue of Bonds in Brčko District (Official Gazzette of Brčko District, no. 16/09 and 19/10).

In Brčko District only two judgments relating to old foreign currency savings were registered so far and entirely paid out. One of them is the judgment rendered by the European Court in Pejaković and others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, submitted in reference of Ružica Pejić by the RS Ministry of Finance to the Finance Directorate of Brčko District for execution, and the other the judgment issued by the Basic Court of Brčko, no. P.310/2000-I of 20 November 2000. On 23 September 2008, the applicant Ružica Pejić was on all grounds paid a total sum of 525.630.39 KM including the difference of uncalculated interest on 6 November 2008. On 8 September 2009, pursuant to the judgment of the Basic Court of Brčko, the applicant Nikola Obrenović was paid a sum of 33.635.29 KM and Dragica Obrenović a sum of 35.035.53 KM.

On 27 July 2010, alter having received required information, the Ministry of Finance and Treasury BiH carried out payment of 652.10 KM in favour of Draga Arežina, the spouse and legal successor of deceased Vladimir Arežina, under the decision of Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. CH/02/9276 Vladimir Arežina v. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 8 March 2006.

Final information on implementation of general measures in Bosnia and Herzegovina as regards the judgment Jeličić v. BiH

Above given information evidence that an effective and adequate legal framework has been set up in Bosnia and Herzegovina which shall secure enforcement of all future claims for payment of old foreign currency savings under final court decisions. As estimated by competent ministries of finance, there are no obstacles to implementation of possible similar judgments in future. Therefore, Bosnia and Herzegovina deems that all measures have been taken to eliminate violations of human rights found in the judgment Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina and to prevent all similar violations in future. Therefore, no further measures are necessary.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1125

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Bistrović against Croatia

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”)26,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Bistrović (25774/05)

31/05/2007

31/08/2007

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(2011)1130);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close its examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT
CASE: Bistrović v.Croatia, application no. 25774/05,

Judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007

In its Judgment of March 31 2007, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) due to the Croatian authorities' failure to establish all the relevant factors, including the reduction of the value of the remaining land, when assessing the compensation payable on the expropriation of part of the applicants' farm.

1. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

On 21/10/2008, Varaždin County Court granted the applicant's request for reopening of proceedings based on the ECtHR judgment in accordance with section 428(a) of the Civil Procedure Act. In reopened proceedings, on 26/02/2009 the County Court quashed the contested decision of the State Administration Office of Varaždin County (hereinafter: the Office) of 16/04/2003 and remitted the case to the same Office for re-examination.

Therefore, the applicants exercised their right to reopen the proceedings that are the subject of their complaint before the ECtHR.

In reopened expropriation proceedings before the State Administration Office of Varaždin County, an authorized expert witness assessed all the relevant factors for determining the compensation for the applicants' expropriated property (such as traffic frequency, noise exposure, other missions etc.).

On 02/06/2011, the Office delivered a new decision on the expropriation of the applicants' farm and awarded compensation for expropriation in the amount of 623.4678,62 HRK in total (cca 83.763.46 EUR).

The decision regarding the compensation to be awarded to the applicants for the expropriation of their farm became final on 02/06/2011.

2. GENERAL MEASURES

The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.mprh.hr/).

The judgment has been disseminated to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Varaždin County Court. Therefore, relevant authorities have been informed of the findings of the ECtHR in this case.

Since this was the only ECtHR judgment against Croatia concerning the application of the Expropriation Act (Official Gazette, nos. 9/94, 35/94, 112/00, 114/01, 79/06, 45/11) which was contrary of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Government emphasizes that the violation found by the ECtHR in this case is individual.

General measures undertaken in the execution of the judgment in this case, as described above, are sufficient to avoid similar violations in the future.

3. JUST SATISFACTION

Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage has been paid within a designated deadline on 30 October 2007. Payment information was delivered to the Department for the Execution of Judgments on 21 November 2007.

4. CONCLUSIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT

In light of all measures taken, the Government deems that no other measures, individual or general, are required to assure that no future violations of this kind occur.

Therefore, the Government proposes to the Committee of Ministers to close the supervision procedure and adopt a final resolution in accordance with Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1227

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Lesjak against Croatia

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”)28,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Lesjak (25904/06)

18/02/2010

18/05/2010

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(2011)322);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close its examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

on individual and general measures undertaken in the execution of ECtHR judgment in

the case of Lesjak v. Croatia, application no. 25904/06,

judgment of February 18 2010, final on May 18 2010

In its judgment of February 18 2010, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, due to the fact that both civil and administrative courts refused to examine the merits of the applicants' case. The Court ruled that, since neither the civil nor the Administrative court ruled on the lawfulness of the termination of his employment, the essence of applicant's right of access to court was denied.

1. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

On February 22 2011, the Municipal court in Varaždin granted the applicant's request for reopening of proceedings based on the ECtHR judgment. The hearing was continued on the same day, and resumed on March 29 2011, when parties to the proceedings requested leave in order to try to achieve a settlement. The next hearing is scheduled for April 29, 2011.

Reopening of proceedings, as stated in § 54 of the judgment, presents the most appropriate redress for the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Since the Government has fulfilled this duty, no other individual measures seem necessary.

GENERAL MEASURES

The judgment bas been widely disseminated, both to the highest courts in Croatia - the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Administrative Court, as well as to the County and the Municipal Courts in Varaždin, which conducted the initial proceedings on the applicants claim.

Additionally, the translation of the judgment has been published on the web page of the Ministry of justice (http://www.mprh.hr/Default.aspx?sec=446).

JUST SATISFACTION

As the Government has informed the Committee of Ministers in its letter of August 27 2010, just satisfaction awarded to the applicant has been paid in full on July 8 2010.

Considering the fast that the violation found by ECtHR in this case presents an isolated incident, where domestic courts failed to properly apply provisions of domestic laws, the Government deems that no other individual or general measures are necessary.


Therefore, the Government of Croatia proposes the closure of the execution proceedings and the adoption of a final resolution (Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements).

Štefica Stažnik

Government Agent

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1329

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Trgo against Croatia

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”)30,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Trgo (35298/04)

11/06/2009

11/09/2009

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(2011)364);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close its examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

CASE: Trgo v. Croatia

Application no. 35298/04, Judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009

In its judgment, the ECtHR found a violation of Article I of Protocol 1 to the Convention, because the domestic courts had refused to acknowledge his ownership of certain plots of land he had acquired by adverse possession. The ECtHR found that the consequences of a mistake by the State authority - enacting unconstitutional legislation - had to be borne by the State and not the individual.

INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

The applicant requested reopening of proceedings before the Municipal Court in Makarska. The applicants' request was rejected since it was lodged out of time. On 23 July 2010 Split County Court confirmed that decision. Under Croatian law, decisions of county courts as courts of second instance are final on the day of their passing. Therefore, domestic proceedings in the applicant's case have ended.

GENERAL MEASURES

The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.mprh11/14).

The judgment has also been disseminated to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, County Court in Split, Municipal Court in Makarska, State Attorney's Office, County State Attorney's Office in Split, Legislation Committee of the Croatian Parliament, Legislation Office of the Government of RoC and Civil Law Directorate of the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, the relevant authorities have been informed of the findings of the ECtHR in this case.

The Government draws attention to the fact that this is an individual violation. Therefore, no other general measure beyond publication and dissemination is necessary.

JUST SATISFACTION

The ECtHR held that finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

The Government deems that no other measures (individual or general) are required to execute the judgment.

Therefore, the Government proposes to the Committee of Ministers the closure of the execution supervision procedure, and the adoption of a final resolution (Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements).

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1431

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Orlić against Croatia

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”)32,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Orlić (48833/07)

21/06/2011

21/09/2011

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(2012)72);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close its examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

ORLIC V. CROATIA APPLICATION NO.:48833/07

JUDGMENT OF 21/06/2011 FINAL ON: 21/09/2011

In its judgment in the 0rlić case the ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 due to the omission of domestic courts to apply the proportionality test in the eviction proceedings brought against the applicant who, under domestic law, was not legally entitled to occupy the flat he lived in.

The facts of this case and the findings of the ECIHR are identical to those in the cases of Ćosić v. Croatia and Paulić v. Croatia for which the Committee of Ministers adopted the final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)48 on its 1115 DH Meeting and closed the examination of the cases.

INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

Under Article 428a of the Croatian Code of Civil Procedure, following the final judgment of the Court, the applicant had the right to file a petition for the reopening of die proceedings. The deadline for filing such a petition expired on October 21 2011. The applicant did not file a petition for reopening of proceedings. Therefore, no individual measures are necessary nor possible.

GENERAL MEASURES

The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and disseminated to all relevant authorities — the Constitutional Court of RoC, the Supreme Court, the County Court in Rijeka, the Municipal Court in Rijeka, Attorney General's Office and the Ministry of Justice.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia on December 22 2010 (decision no. U-III-46/2007) enhanced its practice regarding the right to respect of one's home. The facts of the 0rlić case occurred before the Constitutional Court's change of practice.

The change of Constitutional Court's practice was considered to be an adequate general measure in the Ćosić and Paulić cases.

Since the facts of this case are identical to those of Ćosić and Paulić cases, the Government would like to refer to the action report in the cases of Ćosić v. Croatia, and Paulić v. Croatia and the final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)48 adopted at the 1115DH Meeting with which the examination of Ćosić and Paulić cases was closed.


JUST SATISFACTION

Just satisfaction awarded to the applicant has been paid on November 28. 2011, and payment information on a prescribed form delivered to the Execution's department on November 5, 2011.

CONCLUSION

The Government deems that all necessary measures for the execution of the judgment in this case have been taken, and therefore proposes to the Committee of Ministers the closure of the execution supervision procedure. and the adoption of a final resolution (Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements).

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1533

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Bernobić against Croatia

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”)34,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Bernobić (57180/09)

21/06/2011

21/09/2011

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 plan, document DH-DD(2012)130);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

BERNOBIĆ V. CROATIA, APPLICATION NO.:57180/09
JUDGMENT OF 21/06/2011 FINAL ON: 21/09/2011

In its judgment in the Bernobić case the ECtHR found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, due to the failure of the Constitutional Court to speedily decide on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention.

The facts of this case and the findings of the ECtHR are identical to those in the cases of Peša v. Croatia, Hađi v. Croatia and Getoš-Magdić v. Croatia for which the Committee of Ministers adopted the final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)195 at its 1128 DH Meeting and closed the examination of the cases.

INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

Considering the nature of the violation found in this case and relevant facts of the case, no special individual measures are necessary in the execution process.

GENERAL MEASURES

The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and disseminated to all relevant authorities – the Constitutional Court of RoC, the Supreme Court, the County Court in Zagreb and the Ministry of Justice.

Regarding other general measures, since the facts of the cases are identical, the Government would like to refer to the action reports in the cases of Peša v. Croatia, Hađi v. Croatia and Getoš-Magdić v. Croatia and the Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)195 adopted at the 1128 DH meeting by which the examination of Peša, Hađi and Getoš-Magdić cases was closed.

JUST SATISFACTION

Just satisfaction awarded to the applicant has been paid on October 27, 2011, and payment information on a prescribed form delivered to the Executions’ department on November 7, 2011.

CONCLUSION

The Government deems that all necessary measures for the execution of the judgment in this case have been taken, and therefore proposes to the Committee of Ministers the closure of the execution supervision procedure, and the adoption of a final resolution (Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements).

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1635

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Ismeta Bačić case against Croatia

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”)36,

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

Case name (Application No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Ismeta Bačić (43595/06)

19/06/2008

01/12/2008

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 plan, document DH-DD(2012)162);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

CASE TITLE: ISMETA BAČIĆ V. CROATIA
APPLICATION NO. 43595/06
JUDGMENT OF 19/06/2008
FINAL ON 01/12/2008

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in that the applicants' pecuniary damage claim (recognized in civil proceedings) submitted in the bankruptcy proceedings against her former employer was dismissed as lodged out of Lime, despite the fact that the bankruptcy administrator was legally obliged to include the applicants' clam in the list of all existing claims against the debtor in the bankruptcy proceedings.

1. GENERAL MEASURES

The problem in this case can be summarized as follows: municipal court, deciding in civil proceedings on payment of pecuniary damage, had no knowledge of bankruptcy proceedings before the commercial court (relevant to the possibility of ensuring the payment of compensation awarded in civil proceedings), and vice-versa.

Obligation to inform the court conducting bankruptcy proceedings of any claims against the debtor exists both for the creditor of such claims, and for the bankruptcy administrator. Furthermore, if bankruptcy proceedings are opened against a party to the civil proceedings (before municipal or county courts), the competence to continue these proceedings was to be automatically transferred to the commercial court conducting the bankruptcy proceedings.

Therefore, the issue in this case cannot be solved by re-assessing the case-law of commercial courts (the case law is in compliance with the legislation, the content of which was net scrutinized by the ECtHR). Since the issue is of a technical rather than legal nature, the solution requires no legislative changes or changes of case-law.

The nature of the problem requires setting up a system of cooperation between municipal and commercial courts in such matters.

All information relevant for the status of legal entities (companies, associations, co-operatives, company branches etc.) is entered into the Court Register kept by Commercial Courts. Relevant changes are updated daily. The Court Register is kept both manually and electronically. Opening of bankruptcy proceedings against any subject is immediately recorded into the Register.

On the other hand, domestic courts of all levels of jurisdiction make part of the ICMS (Integrated Case Management System), colloquially known as the e-file system. It is a computer application that stores updated data on all cases pending before domestic courts, i.e. information on parties to the proceedings and their representatives, their submissions, dates and minutes of hearings held, and court decisions rendered in the case.

Therefore, creating a permanent connection between the Court Register and the ICMS will solve the issue of timely information flow regarding the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against any subject that is a party to the civil proceedings. For that purpose, a new function has already been added to the ICMS, connecting permanently the Court Register with the ICMS. This function informs the judge in the civil proceedings on the fact that bankruptcy proceedings were opened against one of the parties to the proceedings immediately after this fact has been entered in the Court Register.

Full electronic connection of the two relevant data-bases has been established in November 2011.

Additionally, the list of all bankruptcy proceedings opened before the new function of the ICMS became fully operational bas been delivered to all municipal and county courts, in order to prevent similar situations in this transitional period.

The judgment has been translated to Croatian and disseminated to all relevant authorities: the Constitutional Court of RoC, the Supreme Court of RoC, the High Commercial Court and the Commercial Court in Zagreb. The translation of the judgment has been published on the web-page of the Ministry of Justice (www.mprh.hr).

INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

As the Committee of Ministers has already been informed, bankruptcy proceedings against the applicants' debtor have been brought to an end (on 10/11/2004), the applicant's debtor ceased to exist and was deleted from the Court Register. Therefore, no further individual measures are necessary (as already assessed by the Committee of Ministers: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp?CaseTitleOrNumber=Ismeta+Bacic&StateCode=CRO&SectionCode).

JUST SATISFACTION

Just satisfaction awarded to the applicant has been paid in full on 23 January 2009, and relevant information on the payment was delivered to the Department for the Execution of Judgments of ECtHR on March 20 2009.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Government deems that full compliance with the ECtHR judgment in this case has been ensured, and proposes to the Committee of Ministers the closure of the supervision procedure and the adoption of a final resolution (Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements).

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1737

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Zirovnicky against the Czech Republic

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”)38,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Zirovnicky (23661/03)

30/10/2010

21/02/2011

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(2011)1029F);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Bilan d’action du Gouvernement de la République tchèque relatif à l’exécution
de l’arrêt de la Cour en l’affaire no 23661/03 –Žirovnický c. République tchèque

Dans son arrêt du 30 septembre 2010, la Cour a constaté la violation du droit du requérant à la liberté et à la sûreté, concrètement de l’article 5 § 1 lettre c) du fait que la détention du requérant avait manqué de base légale suffisante pendant une période précise, de l’article 5 § 4 du fait que l’examen des demandes de remise en liberté n’avait pas été effectué à bref délai, ainsi que de l’article 5 § 5 de la Convention puisque le droit au dédommagement pour la violation de l’article 5 de la Convention n’était pas été suffisamment établi dans l’ordre juridique interne à l’époque. L’arrêt est devenu définitif le 21 février 2011 en vertu de l’article 44 § 2 lettre c) de la Convention. Le présent rapport a pour objet d’informer le Comité des ministres des mesures individuelles et générales d’exécution de l’arrêt.39

I. MESURES INDIVIDUELLES

La Cour a conclu à un certain nombre de violations de la Convention listées plus haut. Étant donné que le requérant ne se trouve plus en détention provisoire qui était à l’origine de sa requête et que la Cour lui a accordé une compensation du préjudice moral subi, aucune mesure à caractère individuel ne semble s’imposer.

II. MESURES GENERALES

Tout d’abord, la violation de l’article 5 § 1 de la Convention constatée par la Cour concerne une période particulière du début de l’année 2002 et était due à un régime transitoire relatif à la prolongation de la détention créé par une modification du code de procédure pénale adoptée en 2001. Il s’en suit qu’il n’y a plus de risque de voir la violation se répéter dans l’avenir.

Ensuite, la violation de l’article 5 § 4 de la Convention concernant la longueur du processus décisionnel sur les demandes de libération présentées par le requérant est du même type que celle relevée dans d’autres affaires visant la République tchèque (Fešar, Singh, Smatana et Vejmola) dont la surveillance de l’exécution a déjà été close par le Comité des ministres.40

Enfin, quant à la violation de l’article 5 § 5 de la Convention, le Gouvernement observe que l’impossibilité de demander une compensation du préjudice moral dans les cas de violations du droit à la liberté et à la sûreté a été corrigée par la loi no 160/2006 qui est entrée en vigueur le 27 avril 2006. La loi prévoit désormais explicitement que dans les cas de décisions illégales et procédés officiels irréguliers la compensation peut couvrir tant le dommage matériel que le préjudice moral (article 31a de la loi). En outre, selon l’article 6a de la loi, la responsabilité pour la violation du droit à la liberté et à la sûreté est régie par les mêmes règles que la responsabilité en cas de décisions illégales et procédés officiels irréguliers.

Vu ce qui précède, le Gouvernement estime que d’autres mesures à caractère général ne sont pas nécessaires.

III. CONCLUSION

Eu égard aux informations susmentionnées le Gouvernement est d’avis que la République tchèque s’est acquittée de toutes les obligations en vue d’exécuter l’arrêt de la Cour en l’affaire Žirovnický c. République tchèque.

Fait à Prague, le 17 octobre 2011.

Vít A. Schorm
Agent du Gouvernement tchèque
(signature électronique)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1841

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Suda against the Czech Republic

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”)42,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Suda (1643/06)

28/10/2010

28/01/2011

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(2011)1023E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Report of the Government of the Czech Republic

on the execution of judgment in case no. 1643/06 – Suda v. the Czech Republic

In its judgment of 28 October 2010 the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, namely of the applicant’s right of access to a court established by law, resulting from his obligation to submit his dispute to private arbitrators. The judgment became final on 28 January 2011 according to Article 44 § 2 (b) of the Convention. The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers about the individual and general measures of execution of the judgment.

I. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

The Government consider that the Court’s judgment, related to a dispute between two private entities, does not require them to introduce any other individual measures going beyond the payment to the applicant of just satisfaction awarded by the Court as reimbursement of costs and expenses. This is supplemented by the fact that the Court did not find any damage that would emerge in causal connection with the violation found. Thus there seems to be no call for, e.g., reopening of the final decisions of domestic courts in order to provide the applicant with a fresh opportunity to initiate civil law proceedings dealing with the amount of compensation before ordinary domestic courts.

II. GENERAL MEASURES

As already acknowledged by the Court in § 15 of the judgment, Section 220k (1) was deleted from the Commercial Code as of 1 July 2008 by new Act no. 125/2008 (Companies and Cooperatives Transformations Act) which does not contain any similar provision providing for arbitrators’ jurisdiction established by a contract between third parties in comparable situations. It follows that at present, occurrence of violation of the Convention similar to the present case is no longer possible. Therefore, no further systemic measures to prevent analogous violations in the future are required.

III. CONCLUSION

The Government of the Czech Republic are of the opinion that they have taken all the measures of execution of the Court’s judgment in Suda v. the Czech Republic.

Prague, 16 September 2011.

Vít A. Schorm

Government Agent before the Court

signed electronically

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1943

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Crabtree against the Czech Republic

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”)44,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Crabtree (41116/04)

25/02/2010

4/10/2010

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(2011)1026F);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Rapport du Gouvernement de la République tchèque sur l’exécution de l’arrêt
en l’affaire no 41116/04 – Crabtree c. République tchèque

Dans son arrêt du 25 février 2010, la Cour a constaté la violation du droit du requérant à la liberté et à la sûreté [article 5 § 1 lettre c) et § 5 de la Convention]. L’arrêt est devenu définitif le 4 octobre 2010 en vertu de l’article 44 § 2 lettre c) de la Convention. Le présent rapport a pour objet d’informer le Comité des ministres des mesures individuelles et générales d’exécution de l’arrêt45.*

I. MESURES INDIVIDUELLES

La Cour a conclu que la détention provisoire du requérant a été dépourvue, dans la période du 29 mai au 9 décembre 2003, de base légale et que le requérant n’a pas pu demander au niveau interne la réparation de cette violation.

Étant donné que le requérant ne se trouve plus en détention provisoire qui était à l’origine de sa requête (voir §§ 11 et 13 de l’arrêt de la Cour) et que la Cour lui a accordé une compensation du préjudice moral subi, aucune mesure à caractère individuel ne semble s’imposer.

II. MESURES GÉNÉRALES

En ce qui est de la violation de l’article 5 § 1 lettre c) de la Convention, le Gouvernement constate que dans la présente affaire il s’agissait d’un cas de violation isolé qui, par conséquent, ne nécessite pas l’adoption de mesures à caractère général. La violation que la Cour a constatée dans son arrêt avait déjà fait au moment de l’adoption de l’arrêt l’objet d’une jurisprudence constante de la Cour constitutionnelle (voir ses arrêts nos IV. ÚS 157/03, IV. ÚS 385/03, IV. ÚS 482/03 et IV. ÚS 503/03).

Quant à la violation de l’article 5 § 5 de la Convention, le Gouvernement observe que l’impossibilité de demander une compensation du préjudice moral dans les cas de violations du droit à la liberté et à la sûreté a été corrigée par la loi no 160/2006 qui est entrée en vigueur le 27 avril 2006. La loi prévoit désormais explicitement que dans les cas de décisions illégales et procédés officiels irréguliers la compensation peut couvrir tant le dommage matériel que le préjudice moral (article 31a de la loi). En outre, selon l’article 6a de la loi, la responsabilité pour la violation du droit à la liberté et à la sûreté est régie par les mêmes règles que la responsabilité en cas de décisions illégales et procédés officiels irréguliers.

Vu ce qui précède, le Gouvernement estime que d’autres mesures à caractère général ne sont pas nécessaires.

III. CONCLUSION

Eu égard aux informations susmentionnées le Gouvernement est d’avis que la République tchèque s’est acquittée de toutes les obligations en vue d’exécuter l’arrêt de la Cour en l’affaire Crabtree c. République tchèque.

Fait à Prague, le 16 septembre 2011.

Vít A. Schorm
Agent du Gouvernement tchèque

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2046

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

5 cases against the Czech Republic

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”)47,

Having regard to the judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

 

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

1

Hubka (500/06)

03/02/2011

03/05/2011

2

Palšovič (39278/04)

03/02/2011

03/05/2011

3

Kysilková et Kysilka (17273/03)

10/02/2011

10/05/2011

4

3A.CZ, s. r. o. (21835/06)

10/02/2011

10/05/2011

5

BENet Praha, spol. s r. o (33908/04, 7937/05, 25249/05, 29402/05 et 33571/06)

24/02/2011

24/05/2011

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 each of the judgments listed in the table above;

Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report for each case provided by the government (see action report, document DH-DD(2011)1024F);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicants the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Rapport du Gouvernement de la République tchèque sur l’exécution des arrêts dans les affaires

no 500/06 – Hubka c. République tchèque, no 39278/04 – Palšovič

c. République tchèque, no 17273/03 – Kysilková et Kysilka c. République tchèque,

no 21835/06 – 3A. CZ, s. r. o., c. République tchèque et nos 33908/04, 7937/05, 25249/05,

29402/05 et 33571/06 – BENet Praha, spol. s r. o., c. République tchèque

Dans cinq arrêts du 3 février 2011 (Hubka c. République tchèque et Palšovič c. République tchèque), du 10 février 2011 (Kysilková et Kysilka c. République tchèque et 3A. CZ, s. r. o., c. République tchèque) et du 24 février 2011 (BENet Praha, spol. s r. o., c. République tchèque) la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme a conclu à la violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention en raison du caractère inéquitable de la procédure devant la Cour constitutionnelle. En vertu de l’article 44 § 2 lettre b) de la Convention les arrêts sont devenus définitifs respectivement les 3, 10 et 24 mai 2011.

Ce rapport vise à informer le Comité des ministres des mesures individuelles et générales prises en vue d’exécuter les arrêts susvisés de la Cour, étant entendu que le Comité a déjà constaté que les mesures générales avaient été adoptées dans le cadre de l’exécution des arrêts Milatová et autres c. République tchèque [arrêt du 21 juin 2005 en l’affaire no 61811/00 ; voir la résolution finale no ResDH(2006)71 du 20 décembre 2006] et Mareš c. République tchèque [arrêt du 26 octobre 2006 en l’affaire no 1414/03 ; voir la résolution finale no CM/ResDH(2010)13 du 4 mars 2010] rendus dans des affaires similaires.

I. MESURES INDIVIDUELLES

Le Gouvernement note que dans toutes les affaires susvisées la Cour a conclu que le constat de violation fournit en soi une satisfaction équitable suffisante pour le préjudice moral subi par les requérants. En plus, il s’agissait dans toutes les affaires des litiges civils dont les tribunaux internes d’au moins deux instances ont décidé, et il ne ressort d’aucun des arrêts de la Cour que la violation du droit à un procès équitable consistant en l’absence de transmission des observations des autres parties à la procédure devant la Cour constitutionnelle a influencé (ou aurait pu influencer) les résultats de ces procédures. Le Gouvernement est donc d’avis qu’une éventuelle réouverture de la procédure (que le droit tchèque n’envisage qu’en matière pénale ; voir, a contrario, Mareš c. République tchèque, arrêt précité) se heurterait au principe de la sécurité juridique, et qu’à l’exception du paiement de la satisfaction équitable aucune autre mesure individuelle d’exécution ne semble s’imposer.

II. MESURES GÉNÉRALES

Suite aux arrêts précités rendu au mois de février 2011, le 3 mai 2011 l’assemblée plénière de la Cour constitutionnelle a adopté une nouvelle recommandation no 20/11 (voir l’annexe) qui a remplacé la recommandation no 50/05 du 25 octobre 2005 (voir la note du Gouvernement sur l’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour en l’affaire Milatová et autres c. République tchèque).

Cette nouvelle recommandation prévoit que les observations demandées aux autres parties à la procédure seront toujours transmises au requérant pour réplique, à l’exception des cas où ces observations ne contiennent qu’une référence aux décisions rendues auparavant et contestées par le recours constitutionnel. Cette solution est d’ailleurs conforme aux conclusions de la Cour exprimées dans un certain nombre de décisions rendues sur la base du nouveau critère de recevabilité établi par le Protocole no 14 à la Convention. La Cour a en effet estimé que les observations des autres parties qui n’ont pas été communiquées aux requérants pour réplique ni prises en compte par la Cour constitutionnelle dans ses décisions ne contenaient que de simples références aux décisions rendues auparavant, les requérants n’ayant donc pas subi de préjudice important.

III. CONCLUSION

Eu égard aux informations susmentionnées le Gouvernement est d’avis que la République tchèque s’est acquittée de toutes les obligations en vue d’exécuter les arrêts de la Cour dans les affaires Hubka c. République tchèque, Palšovič c. République tchèque, Kysilková et Kysilka c. République tchèque, 3A.CZ, s. r. o., c. République tchèque et BENet Praha, spol. s r. o., c. République tchèque.

Fait à Prague, le 16 septembre 2011.

Vít A. Schorm

Agent du Gouvernement tchèque

(signature électronique)

Annexe

[…]

RECOMMANDATION DE L’ASSEMBLÉE PLÉNIÈRE

DE LA COUR CONSTITUTIONNELLE

no Org. 21/11

Après en avoir délibéré lors de la session de l’assemblée plénière de la Cour constitutionnelle du 3 mai 2011 no 20/11 (protocole no 19/11), l’assemblée plénière de la Cour constitutionnelle a adopté la recommandation suivante :

Au vu des arrêts de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme dans les affaires Radmila Kysilková et Zdeněk Kysilka c. République tchèque du 10 février 2011, Jaroslav Palšovič c. République tchèque du 3 février 2011, Stanislav Hubka c. République tchèque du 3 février 2011, 3A.CZ, s. r. o., c. République tchèque du 10 février 2011, BENet Praha, spol. s r. o, c. République tchèque du 24 février 2011 et autres ([...] par exemple [...] Dana Milatová et autres c. République tchèque [...] du 21 juin 2005), l’assemblée plénière de la Cour constitutionnelle recommande à ses membres lorsqu’ils exercent la fonction de juge rapporteur dans les procédures sur les recours constitutionnels :

I. de considérer s’il est indispensable de recueillir les observations des parties et des parties intervenantes à la procédure lorsqu’il est patent que le recours constitutionnel peut être rejeté pour défaut manifeste de fondement, voire pour d’autres motifs, et s’il n’est pas possible d’établir les faits pertinents plutôt sur la base du dossier demandé,

II. si les observations ont été demandées, de les transmettre sans exception (c’est-à-dire même lorsqu’on peut considérer qu’elles ne contiennent pas de nouveaux faits, allégations ou arguments) au requérant, ou plutôt à son représentant, pour information avec un délai approprié, qu’il soit reconnu tacitement ou implicitement, pour une éventuelle réplique avant de prendre la décision finale,

à l’exception des cas où il s’agit des observations d’une autorité publique dont le contenu n’est qu’une simple référence à la décision rendue auparavant par cette autorité et contestée par le recours constitutionnel,

III. et d’informer leurs assistants et greffiers de cette recommandation.

Cette recommandation remplace la recommandation de l’assemblée plénière no 50/05 du 25 octobre 2005.

Fait à Brno, le 3 mai 2011.

[...]

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2148

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Macready against Czech Republic

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”)49,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Macready (4824/06)

22/04/2010

04/10/2010

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(2011)1021E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Report of the Government of the Czech Republic on the execution of the judgment

in cases nos. 4824/06 and 15512/08 – Macready v. the Czech Republic

In its judgment of 22 April 2010 the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, in connection with the proceedings relating to the return of the applicant’s child according to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “the Hague Convention”) and the exercise of the applicant’s visiting rights. The judgment became final on 4 October 2010 according to Article 44 § 2 (c) of the Convention. The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers of the individual and general measures of execution of the judgment.

I. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

In view of the Government, the wrong complained of by the applicant, i.e. both the unreasonable length of the proceedings relating to the return of the applicant’s child according to the Hague Convention and the failure of the courts to ensure the applicant’s exercise of the interim measures arranging for his right to contact with his child have already been rectified as the proceedings in hand terminated with the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the applicant’s constitutional appeal on 27 September 2007 which was served to the applicant on 11 October 2007.

Therefore, the Government believe that no further individual measures to execute the Court’s judgment are necessary.

II. GENERAL MEASURES

The Government note that in its judgment the Court itself pointed out the existence of Act no. 295/2008 which entered into force on 1 October 2008 and which amended the Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, the new Sections 193a-193e of the Rules of Civil Procedure provide with a separate legal scope for the proceedings relating to the international child abduction the purpose of which is to secure a concentrated course of the proceedings with respect to the limits set down by the Hague Convention (determination of a special tribunal for the proceedings in case; the possibility for the court to take suitable measures in order to se-cure conditions for a return of a child or to decide on interim arrangements of a complainant’s contact with his/her child; implementation of the statutory six-week time limit for delivering a decision on the merits). The Court further admitted that the Czech Republic had heard the Court’s criticism relating to the preventive remedy against an unreasonable length of proceedings under Act no. 6/2002, as the relevant provision had been amended.

In addition, the Government would like to stress that besides the above mentioned amendments a significant effort has been made in order to spread relevant information relating to the problematic issues of international parental disputes, on the one hand, among judges deciding relevant cases and among other competent state authorities (such as the authorities for social and legal protection of children and the Office for International Legal Protection of Children – OILPC ) and, on the other hand, also to the public at large. In particular, the amended Rules of Civil Procedure and, generally, the family issues have been a subject matter of a number of seminars held for judges, their assistants and senior court officers at the Judicial Academy of the Czech Republic. For example, a seminar for child care judges was held in Autumn 2008, a seminar for judges of district and regional courts on family law was held in January 2009, a seminar for judges of courts of the first instance was held in the matter of the Rules of Civil Procedure and their amendments in March 2009 and six seminars for senior court officers and bailiffs concerning the execution of decisions involving minor children took place in April 2009. The topic of the execution of the decisions of the foreign child care courts was discussed between judges and their assistants during a seminar in September 2009. In order to inform the public at large, there have been several leaflets published by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs concerning both general information for the “international families in crisis” and particularly the issue of international abduction of children.

An important accent was also put on mediation in parental disputes. The role of an informal mediator in the international child abduction disputes is performed by the OILPC the task of which is to reach solutions that would have the least possible negative impacts on the family crisis caused by illegal international removals of children. So far, the OILPC’s effort, intensified in the field of mediation since 2009, has achieved success. According to the statistics available to the Government which relate to the success rate of the OILPC’s mediation activity in the international child abduction cases concerning the Czech Republic in 2009 and 2010, from the total number of 56 cases of international child abduction in 33 cases the mediation resulted in an agreement as a final solution of the case (9 cases) or a voluntary return of a child (12 cases) or a withdrawal of a motion for return of child filed with a tribunal (12 cases).

Concerning the preventive remedy against an unreasonable length of proceedings in the form of a motion for determination of a time limit for taking a procedural step according to Section 174a of Act no. 6/2002 on Courts and Judges, the Government note that the amendment which came into force on 1 July 2009 and which the Court mentioned in the judgment removed the contentious relation between the mentioned motion for the determination of a time limit for making a procedural act and the complaint filed with an authority responsible for the State’s administration of courts according to Section 164 of the act. The Government are of the opinion that the preventive remedy against an unreasonable length of proceedings now fully complies with the requirement of effectiveness set down by the Convention.

In conclusion, the Government believe that no further systematic measures to prevent analogous violations in future are required.

III. CONCLUSION

The Government of the Czech Republic submit this report and believe that they will be found to have implemented all obligations incumbent upon them in order to execute the Macready v. the Czech Republic judgment.

Prague, 16 September 2011.

Vít A. Schorm

Government Agent before the Court

signed electronically

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2250

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Marttinen against Finland

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”)51,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Marttinen (19235/03)

21/04/2009

21/07/2009

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(2012)188E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Marttinen against Finland

Application No. 19235/03

Judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009

Violation of the Convention

Art. 6 § 1

Right to a fair trial.

In proceedings to recover a debt from 2000-2002, the applicant was fined for refusing to give an overall account of his assets and other financial means under Chapter 3, section 34(d) of the Enforcement Act. At the same time the applicant suspected of a tax fraud concerning the same assets in other proceedings.

The Court found that the determination to ensure the effectiveness of debt recovery proceedings could not justify a provision which extinguished the very essence of the applicant's right to silence and not to incriminate himself.

Type

Leading case.

Individual measures

1. The administrative fine ordered by the Helsinki District Court’s decision from 9 July 2000 was not paid as the bailiff subsequently waived the enforcement inquiry (see §24 of the judgment). The European Court held that the finding of violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage. Further, re-opening of proceedings is possible under national law. Consequently, no other measure is considered necessary.

General measures

2. Chapter 3 of the Enforcement Act was amended with effect from 1 March 2004 and a new mechanism was introduced prohibiting the use of incriminating information to circumvent provisions on testimony or have the debtor charged with a criminal offence (see §§34 and 75 of the judgment).

3. Further, in its precedent of 20 October of 2009, the Supreme Court (KKO: 2009:80) annulled one of its earlier judgments concerning the right not to incriminate oneself. The case did not concern the applicant of the case of Marttinen v. Finland but in its reasoning the Supreme Court referred to the case.

4. According to the precedent, if information about a debtor’s property relates to both a pending criminal case and to enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings where this information is wanted from the debtor with the threat of punishment, the debtor is entitled to refuse to declare the property. The significance of the information from the standpoint of the debtor's possible guilt is irrelevant.

5. In its precedent of 30 June 2010 (KKO: 2010:49), the Supreme Court also referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to not incriminate oneself, including the case of Marttinen, as well as to its previous annulment of a judgment (KKO: 2009:80).

6. A press release was issued the same day as the judgment. Additionally, the judgment of the European Court was sent out to the relevant national authorities, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The judgments were published in the legal database Finlex in English, along with summaries in Finnish (www.finlex.fi).

Conclusion

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2352

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Suuripää against Finland

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”)53,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Suuripää (43151/02)

12/01/2010

12/04/2010

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(2012)189);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT / ACTION PLAN

ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Suuripää against Finland

Application No. 43151/02, Judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010

Violation of the Convention

Art. 6

Right to a fair trial.

In the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Supreme Court on 13 June 2002 reversed the lower court's judgment to his disadvantage without holding an oral hearing. (§§ 47and 48 of the judgment)

Art. 6 § 1

Excessive length of criminal proceedings, three years and eleven months at two levels of jurisdiction (8 July 1998 – 13 June 2002)

Type

Leading case.

Individual measures

Just satisfaction

1. Just satisfaction, in total EUR 8.750, has been paid by the Government. See the document enclosed. Other measures

2. The proceedings in issue are now closed. Further, the re-opening of criminal proceedings is possible under the national law. No other individual measures are necessary.

General measures

3. In general, the Supreme Court has the possibility to hold a hearing: under Chapter 30, section 20, subsection 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the Supreme Court shall hold a hearing where necessary (see §27 of the judgment). The violation arose from an isolated decision by the Supreme Court not to hold a hearing in this case.

4. In view of the direct effect of the Convention and its case-law in Finnish legal system, the publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment to all judicial authorities are useful to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment has been disseminated to the Helsinki Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Finance.

5. In relation to the violation concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, see Kangasluoma v Finland 48339/99).

6. The summary of the judgement has been published on the Government’s website on national legislation and case law (www.finlex.fi) in Finnish. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs also gave a press release on the case the same day the judgement was issued.

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2454

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

7 cases against France

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Achour, application No. 22276/09

22/03/2011

Association de Défense des Actionnaires Minoritaires, application No. 60151/09

09/11/2010

Ben Ahmed, application No. 4301/09

22/03/2011

Chikr, application No. 55073/08

22/03/2011

Daoudi Veuve Kouri, application No. 31721/07

22/03/2011

Oury, application No. 50037/08

08/03/2011

Mourmand Cazin, application No. 4989/07

30/08/2011

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the respondent state,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close their examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2555

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Paradysz against France

(Application No. 17020/05, judgment of 29 October 2009, final on 1 March 2010)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand (violation of article 5, paragraph 3);

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 the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment,

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;

Recalling that no individual measure was necessary, as the period of detention on remand at issue had terminated by the time the Court delivered its judgment;

Recalling that the general measures were already adopted in the framework of the cases of Muller (Final Resolution ResDH(2003)50) and Etcheveste and Bidart (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)39);

      DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state, 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.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2656

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

two cases against France

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”)57,

Having regard to the judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Ben Naceur (63879/00)

3/10/2006

3/01/2007

Gacon (1092/04)

22/05/2008

22/08/2008

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 applicants 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 each of the judgments listed in the table above;

Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the Action Report for each case provided by the government (see action report, document DH-DD(2011)323);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicants the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments and concerning the Ben Naceur case that the payment was made under terms which appear to have been accepted by the applicant;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Ben Naceur contre France (n°63879/00)

Arrêt du 3 octobre 2006 devenu définitif le 3 janvier 2007

Gacon contre France (n°1092/04)

Arrêt du 22 mai 2008 devenu définitif le 22 août 2008

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Ces deux affaires concernent des atteintes au principe de l'égalité des armes (violations de l'article 6§1).

Dans l'affaire Ben Naceur, le 22/02/1999, le tribunal correctionnel de Lyon a condamné le requérant à 7 ans d'emprisonnement et à l'interdiction définitive du territoire français. Ni le requérant ni le procureur de la République ne firent appel du jugement dans le délai de dix jours imparti par l'article 498 du code de procédure pénale. Cependant, le procureur général interjeta appel le 16/03/1999, en vertu de l'article 505 du code de procédure pénale qui ouvre au procureur général un délai d'appel de 2 mois à compter du prononcé du jugement correctionnel. La cour d'appel confirma la mesure d'éloignement du requérant et porta la peine d'emprisonnement à 12 ans. Le requérant se pourvut vainement en cassation. La Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme a estimé que, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, la conjugaison de deux éléments avait mis le requérant dans une position de net désavantage par rapport au ministère public, rompant ainsi l'égalité des armes :

- d'une part, le fait que le ministère public qui a des intérêts distincts et opposés à ceux du requérant, bénéficie d'une prolongation du délai d'appel ;

- d'autre part le fait que le requérant ne disposait pas de la possibilité d'interjeter un appel incident, en vertu du droit applicable.

Dans l'affaire Gacon, le 30/03/2001, le tribunal correctionnel de Lyon a constaté l'extinction de l'action publique par amnistie de plein droit du délit dont le requérant était accusé. Les parties civiles ont interjeté appel dans le délai imparti par l'article 498 du code de procédure pénale, ce que le procureur de la République n'a pas fait. En revanche, le procureur de la république a interjeté appel en vertu de l'article 505, comme dans l'affaire Ben Naceur. En appel, la relaxe prononcée à l'égard du requérant fut confirmée, mais la cour d'appel déclara le requérant coupable d'un autre délit. La Cour européenne a jugé que, bien que le requérant ait été relaxé en première instance, cette affaire devait être rapprochée de l'affaire Ben Naceur (§34) ; en effet, l'appel du procureur général sur le fondement de l'article 505 exposait le requérant à un risque plus important encore, celui de l'infirmation du jugement de relaxe. Le fait que le parquet a bénéficié d'une prolongation du délai d'appel a placé le requérant dans une position de net désavantage par rapport au ministère public, rompant ainsi l'égalité des armes.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué à M. Ben Naceur une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage moral (4 500 €) et au titre des dépens (1 500 €). La somme totale, soit 6 000 €, a été versée au requérant le 26 décembre 2007.

La Cour a alloué à M. Gacon une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage moral (4 500 €) et au titre des dépens (6 000 €). La somme totale, soit 10 500 €, a été versée au requérant le 26 septembre 2008, majorée de 80,33 € au titre des intérêts moratoires.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Les requérants disposent de la possibilité de demander le réexamen de leur affaire en application des articles L 626-1 et suivants du code de procédure pénale. Aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est donc requise.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

L’arrêt Ben Naceur a été diffusé au Premier Président de la Cour de Cassation et au Procureur Général près la même Cour, au Procureur Général près la Cour d'appel de Lyon, ainsi qu'à la Direction des affaires criminelles et des grâces du ministère de la Justice. L'arrêt a également fait l'objet d'une dépêche émanant de cette direction et datée du 4 décembre 2006. Cette dépêche a été adressée aux procureurs généraux près les cours d'appel, attirant leur attention sur les conséquences de la condamnation prononcée par la Cour à l'encontre de la France. Il est précisé qu'en cas d'exercice du droit d'appel des procureurs généraux dans le délai prévu par l'article 505 du code de procédure pénale, les procureurs généraux doivent veiller à ce que soit requise la recevabilité de l'appel interjeté par le prévenu durant le délai supplémentaire de cinq jours.

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

En tout état de cause, les dispositions du Code de procédure pénale en cause dans ces arrêts ont été modifiées par l’article 73 de la loi n° 2009-1436 du 24 novembre 2009. Désormais, l’article 498 dudit code dispose notamment que « sans préjudice de l’article 505, l’appel est interjeté dans le délai de dix jours à compter du prononcé du jugement contradictoire ». L’article 505 dispose quant à lui qu’en cas d’appel du parquet lors de jugement de condamnation – l’appel pouvant être formé dans les 20 jours à compter du jour du prononcé de la décision – les autres parties ont alors un délai de cinq jours pour interjeter un appel incident. L’article 505 précise également que « Même en l’absence d’appel incident, la Cour d’appel peut, en cas d’appel formé par le seul procureur général en application du présent article, prononcer une peine moins importante que celle prononcée par le tribunal correctionnel ».

En conséquence, le gouvernement français estime avoir tiré toutes les conséquences des deux arrêts en cause.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2758

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Chaudet against France

(Application No. 49037/06, judgment of 29 October 2009, final on 28 June 2010)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a breach of the right to a fair trial due to the presence of the Government Commissioner at the deliberation of the bench of the Conseil d'Etat, in May 2006 (violation of Article 6§1).;

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,

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;

Recalling that no individual measure is necessary, in particular in view of the finding of the Court that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the allowance she was requesting in the national proceedings, and that there was no causal link between the pecuniary damage allegedly suffered by the applicant and the violation of Article 6§1 found in the present judgment;

Recalling that the general measures were already adopted in the framework of the Kress case (Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)44);

      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.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2859

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Ravon and others, Kandler and others, Société IFB and Maschino against France

(Application No. 18497/03, judgment of 21 February 2008, final on 21 May 2008,

Application No. 18659/05, judgment of 18 September 2008, final on 18 December 2008,

Application No. 2058/04, judgment of 20 November 2008, final on 20 February 2009,

Application No. 10447/03, judgment of 16 October 2008, final on 16 January 2009)

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern lack of access to a court in order for the applicants to challenge the lawfulness of the house searches and seizures to which they had been subjected in the framework of fiscal proceedings, on the basis of Article L.16B of the Code of Tax Procedure (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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 judgments;

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 the respondent State has paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

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 erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

      - 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 these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)28

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Ravon and others, Kandler and others, Société IFB and Maschino against France

      Introductory case summary

These cases concern house searches and seizures carried out between 2000 and 2003, at the request of the tax administration, in the professional and/or private premises of the applicants. The Court found that the applicants had not had access to a court to obtain a decision on their objections to these searches and seizures (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).

The Court noted that the only avenue of appeal available to the applicants under Article L.16B of the Code of Tax Procedure was an appeal on points of law only. It did not permit an examination of the facts in question and did not provide sufficient guarantees of the right to a fair hearing. The fact that search and seizure can only be undertaken following a judge's order (at the material time, an order of the president of the Regional Court, but now an order of the liberties and detention judge) is not sufficient to overcome this gap. Furthermore, the fact that Article L.16B of the Code of Tax Procedure provides that such proceedings must take place under the supervision of that judge does not provide any independent control of the lawfulness of the authorisation itself. Finally, the Court found that it had not been possible for the persons concerned to have access to the judge who authorised the search proceedings once the searches had been completed. Complaints about irregularities affecting the proceedings could be made only to the courts ruling on the prosecutions begun on the basis of the documents seized, so this remedy was not available in the absence of a prosecution (as in the applicants’ cases).

      I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Ravon and others No. 18497/03

-

5000 EUR

-

5000 EUR

Paid on 25/07/2008

Kandler and others

No. 18659/05

-

-

-

 

-

Société IFB

No. 2058/04

-

-

-

 

-

Maschino

No. 10447/03

-

5000 EUR

5000 EUR

10000 EUR

Paid with interest on 27/07/2009

b) Individual measures

None of the applicants was prosecuted by the tax administration following the procedures at issue (§ 11 of the judgment in the case of Ravon and others; § 10 of the judgment in the case of Kandler and others; § 10 of the judgment in the case of Société IFB; § 13 of the judgment in the case of Maschino). In the case of Maschino, it awarded € 5000 to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In the cases of Kandler and others and Société IFB, the Court considered that the non-pecuniary damage had been sufficiently compensated by its finding of violations. No individual measure other than the payment of just satisfaction appeared necessary.

      II. General measures

The European Court pointed out that "Article 6§1 implies that, in relation to search and seizure proceedings, those concerned should be able to challenge before an effective court, in fact and in law, the regularity of the decision ordering the proceedings and, if needed, the measures taken because of it. The avenue of appeal available should permit, in case of irregularity, the supervision of the proceedings in the event that if an operation is found to be irregular, those affected can obtain suitable redress" (§ 28).

Article L. 16 B of the Code of Tax Procedure was amended by Article 164 of Law No. 2008-776 of 4 August 2008 (loi de modernisation de l'économie) to take into account the requirement of access to a court in this kind of proceedings. Article L. 16 B as amended now provides first the possibility to appeal against an order authorising searches before the court of appeal's first president who is competent to examine the facts and the law. The order specifies the time limit and the remedy. The article provides secondly that the first president of the court of appeal is also competent for appeals lodged in respect of the conduct of the search and seizure operations. The minutes and the inventory drafted following the searches and seizures mention the time limit and remedy. The decisions of the first president of the court of appeal can themselves be the subject of an appeal on points of law.

The European Court has delivered several decisions of inadmissibility or strikings-out, in the light of the effective nature of the remedy thus introduced. It has taken the view that "an appeal lodged before the first president of the court of appeal enables the persons concerned to challenge, in law and in fact, the lawfulness and merits of the order of the liberties and detention judge authorising house searches and seizures, and also the conduct of these operations, thus guaranteeing them effective judicial supervision of the lawfulness of the order which meets the requirements of Article 6§1 of the Convention. The Court does not accept the applicants' argument that this new remedy is purely theoretical" (decision in the case of Société Provitel St-Georges and J. Emery, Application No. 29437/08, 9 November 2010; also see, inter alia, the decision in the case of SAS Arcalia, Application No. 33088/08, 31 August 2010; and the decision in the case of Naco Trading AS, Application No. 29377/08, 28 September 2010).

      III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants by the Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)2960

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

2 cases against Georgia

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Kobakhidze and Ninua, application No. 14929/09

11/10/2011

Tchanturia, application No. 2225/08

18/10/2011

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these case the Court, having taken formal note of the friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, to strike these cases out of its list;

Noting that in accordance with the terms of the friendly settlements the applicants have been released from prison on the 5 October 2011 and that the copies of the decisions for their release were provided by the authorities.

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly-settlements were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close their examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3061

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Tritsis against Greece

(Application No. 3127/08, judgment of 10 June 2010, final on 10 September 2010)

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 disproportionate limitation of the applicant's right of access to the Council of State and the excessive length of proceedings before that court (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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 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(2012)30

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Tritsis against Greece

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns the disproportionate limitation of the applicant's right of access to a court due to the way in which the Council of State rejected in 2006 his joint application with two other persons, on the grounds that his interest had not been the same as those of the other complainants (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the Council of State provided no specific reason to justify the inapplicability of the relevant provision of national law (Article 45§6 of the Presidential Decree 18/1989, as amended by Article 22 of Law 3226/2004), which expressly provided the separation of the joint application in the event of divergence of interest, and its examination regarding the first applicant (§§ 25- 26 of the judgment).

The case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before the Council of State (6 years and 3 months for one level of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

 

12 000 EUR

 

12 000 EUR

Paid on 31/12/2010

The just satisfaction was paid under conditions apparently accepted by the applicant.

b) Individual measures

Reopening of proceedings before the Council of State following a judgment by the European Court is not provided by national law. The authorities indicated that the Council of State rejected the application of the other two persons, with whom the applicant had jointly filed his complaint, as inadmissible.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

1) Right of access to a court

Under national law, in cases where the interest of more applicants, who filed a joint application, is not common, the relevant application is separated, heard for the first applicant and then heard separately for the others (Article 45 paragraph 6 of Presidential Decree 18/1989, as amended by Article 22§9 of Law 3226/2004). According to the Council of State's constant case-law in the absence of common interest of all the applicants, the Council of State: (a) disconnects the application, retains jurisdiction for the first applicant listed in the application and those who have a common interest and (b) orders the separation of the application for the rest of the applicants and arranges a specific hearing for them. The latter should lodge a separate application within thirty days from notification of the above-mentioned decision (see for example judgments Nos 586/2010, 1200/2009, 1105/2009, 216/2009, 51/2009, 2141/2008, 2228/2007, 1803/2007, 3279/2006).

According to the authorities, in view of the explicit provision of the national law and the constant case-law of the Council of State the judgment of the Council of State in the present case is an isolated one.

2) Excessive length of proceedings in the Council of State:


Legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before the administrative courts and the Council of State were adopted (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)65 on Pafitis and others and 14 other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the pilot judgment Vassilios Athanasiou.

The European Court’s judgment, translated into Greek, was transmitted to the Council of State; it was published on the website of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr).

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3162

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis against Greece

(Applications No 27863/05, 28422/05 and 28028/05, judgment of 10 April 2008, final on 10 July 2008)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the violation of the right to free elections due to the applicants' forfeiture of their parliamentary seats following a reversal of the Special Supreme Court's constant case-law (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No 1) (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 judgments;

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 the respondent State paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments under conditions accepted by them (see details in Appendix),

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 erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

      - 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(2012)31

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of

Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis against Greece

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns a violation of the right to free elections due to the applicants' forfeiture of their parliamentary seats following a reversal of the case-law of the Special Supreme Court (Anotato Eidiko Dikastirio). Under the electoral law applicable at the material time (presidential decree No 351/2003), amongst three sorts of ballot papers (ballot papers recognised as valid, blank ballot papers and void ballot papers) only those recognised as valid could be taken into consideration for the calculation of the electoral ratio and the attribution of seats. However, the Special Supreme Court, by a judgment of 2005, proceeded to a new interpretation of the legislation and took into account, for the calculation of the electoral quotient, not only the valid ballot papers, but also the blank ballot papers. This interpretation, which the applicants could not have foreseen, resulted in a new distribution of seats and the applicants were consequently deprived of their seats.

The European Court considered that in assessing the applicants' election in the light of the new interpretation of the electoral law without taking into account that this election had been conducted entirely according to law, the Special Supreme Court had breached the principle of legitimate trust and of lawfulness with regard to the applicants and the voters (§ 33 of the judgment) (violation of Article 3 Protocol No. 1).

      I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

PASCHALIDIS

119 613 EUR

 

5 000 EUR

124 613 EUR

Paid on 27/10/2008

 

KOUTMERIDIS

78 298 EUR

 

5 000 EUR

83 298 EUR

Paid on 24/10/2008

 

ZAHARAKIS

142 532 EUR

 

2 000 EUR

144 532 EUR

Paid on 27/10/2008

 

The just satisfaction was paid under conditions apparently accepted by the applicants.

b) Individual measures

The just satisfaction awarded included the parliamentary allowances the applicants would have received if they had not forfeited their parliamentary seats. The relevant amount was calculated until the end of their term of office, net of the amount of the parliamentary pension received for the same period by the first and third applicants and the salary payments received by the second applicant.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

The European Court's judgment, translated into Greek, was widely disseminated, including to the Special Supreme Court.

The European Court noted that the judgment of the Special Supreme Court in question was the only judgment in which the highest electoral tribunal counted blank ballots among the valid ballots, since later the Greek Parliament adopted a new provision, namely Article 1 of Law No. 3434/2006, to avoid any imprecision that may result from the judgment in question. Under the new provision, blank ballot papers are not taken into account (§31 of the judgment).

The Greek authorities underline that this legislative amendment has remedied the violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 found in this case.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3263

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Markoulaki (No. 1) against Greece

(Application No. 44858/04, judgment of 26 July 2007, final on 26 October 2007)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the insufficient reasoning of the refusal of the Prosecutor before the Criminal Court of Appeals and the Prosecutor before the Court of Cassation to introduce appeal on the merits and on points of law respectively on the applicant’s behalf in criminal proceedings to which the applicant was a civil party (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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(2012)32

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Markoulaki (No. 1) against Greece

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings for bodily harm through negligence (the applicant’s leg had been amputated), to which the applicant was civil party against her doctor. Under domestic law, when an acquittal has been granted, a civil party is not, in principle, entitled to lodge an appeal directly against the decision granting acquittal. According to judicial practice, however, the civil party has the possibility to request the public prosecutor to lodge an appeal. In the present case, following the doctor’s acquittal at first instance in 2004, the Prosecutor before the Criminal Court of Appeals dismissed the applicant’s request to lodge an appeal on the merits and the Prosecutor before the Court of Cassation refused to lodge an appeal on points of law, by means of a handwritten note containing no reasons (violation of Article 6§1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

 

3000 EUR

 

3000 EUR

Paid on 20/12/2007

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

In its subsequent judgment Gorou (No. 2) (No. 12686/03, judgment of 20/03/2009), the Grand Chamber of the European Court rendered that ‘’the handwritten note placed on the applicant's request simply gives information about the discretionary decision taken by the public prosecutor. Seen from that perspective, and having regard to the existing judicial practice, the public prosecutor does not have a duty to justify his response but only to give a response to the civil party. To demand more detailed reasoning would place on the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation an additional burden that is not imposed by the nature of the civil party's request for him to appeal on points of law against an acquittal’’ (§42). This case-law was confirmed in the cases Vervesos (No. 14721/06, judgment of 14/05/2009) and Giannatos (No. 12652/07, decision of 02/07/2009). In the decision of inadmissibility in the case of Giannatos, the European Court applied the reasoning of the Gorou No. 2 judgment to refusals of prosecutors at both appeal and cassation.

Following the recent case-law of the European Court the violation of Article 6§1 found in the present case is no longer relevant.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the payment of just satisfaction and the recent case-law of the European Court have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3364

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Tsotsos against Greece

(Application No. 25109/07, judgment of 30 April 2009, final on 30 July 2009)

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 a violation of the applicant's right to have witnesses against him examined (violation of Article 6 paragraph 3 d) and the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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(2012)33

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Tsotsos against Greece

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns unfair criminal proceedings: the applicant was convicted on the decisive basis of statements of witnesses against him, which he was not able to challenge at any stage of the proceedings (violation of Article 6§3 d)

The case also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (7 years and 7 months for three levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

 

3500 EUR

 

3500 EUR

Paid on 26/10/2009

b) Individual measures

Following the Court’s judgment, the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings under Article 525 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Cassation (judgment No. 554/2010) re-examined the case following the applicant’s request and quashed his previous conviction. Further, it decided to drop the charges against him on the grounds of prescription.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

1) Right to examine or have witnesses examined

The European Court's judgment translated into Greek was sent by the Ministry of Justice to the President and the General prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, in order to be further disseminated to all the relevant judicial authorities. The judgment was also published on the official website of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr).

As the violation found does not appear to reveal a structural problem, no other general measures are deemed necessary.

2) Excessive length of criminal proceedings:

Legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before the criminal courts were adopted (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)66 on Tarighi Wageh Dashti and 7 other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005 ). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the Manios group.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3465

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Zeibek against Greece

(Application No. 46368/06, judgment of 9 July 2009, final on 9 October 2009)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns discriminatory interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14) (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(2012)34

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Zeibek against Greece

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns discriminatory interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. In 2001 the Authority for Agricultural Security dismissed the applicant’s request for a pension as the mother of a large family on grounds that one of her four children did not have Greek nationality. The appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision was dismissed by the Council of State in 2006 (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14).

The applicant and the members of her family had their Greek nationality withdrawn in 1984 by a decision based on Article 19 of the Nationality Code as then in force but later abolished. The applicant and certain members of her family were reinstated as Greek nationals in 2000, except for one daughter, a married minor who was considered as dependent on her husband and not on her mother concerning the acquisition of nationality. The Court noted that according to Greek law, the status of mother of a large family was in principle to be retained for life. In addition, according to some judgments of the Council of State the pension should be awarded regardless of the children's nationality and even when one or more of the children ceased to be attached to the family. Therefore the applicant’s full reinstatement should also have involved recognising her as the mother of a large family with all the benefits arising from that status.

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

8 455 EUR

5 000 EUR

2 500 EUR

15 955 EUR

Paid on 14/12/2009

b) Individual measures

The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary, as well as pecuniary damage sustained. The latter included the sum of the pension allowance until the end of 2006. The authorities indicated that the applicant has been receiving the required pension as from 01/01/2007 (Act No. 757494/2007 of the competent service).

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

The authorities have indicated that Ministerial Decision No. 440/1991 had amended the initial Article 63 of Law No. 1892/1990 and introduced for the first time the nationality of the children as a prerequisite for acquiring the status of mother of a large family. According to legal opinion No 308/2009 of the Legal Council of the State, the relevant provisions of the Ministerial Decision were considered inapplicable. The Legal Council of the State has concluded that "the nationality of the children of persons with large families should not be taken into consideration when processing the award of the relevant allowances". The authorities indicated that the above legal opinion is binding on the Administration and thus the present violation could not occur in the future.

The Court’s judgment, translated into Greek, was sent out to the relevant administrative authorities and to the Council of State; it was also published on the website of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk. gr).

      III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3566

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Fawsie and Saidoun against Greece

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”)67,

Having regard to the judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they became final;

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Fawsie (No. 40080/07)

28 October 2010

28 January 2011

Saidoun (No. 40083/07)

28 October 2010

28 January 2011

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 each of the judgments listed in the table above;

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(2011)629F);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicants the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3668

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

5 cases against Hungary

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Kosik, application No. 48712/06

18/01/2011

László Balogh, application No. 8183/07

15/06/2010

Názon, application No. 23537/07

08/06/2010

Palotai, application No. 44268/07

07/12/2010

Zichy Galéria (No. 2), application No. 9200/07

08/06/2010

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly-settlements were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close their examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3769

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

2 cases against Latvia

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Dudarevs, application No. 28621/10

14/06/2011

Zerebkovs, application No. 19615/03

22/03/2011

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close their examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3870

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

Popa against the Republic of Moldova

(Application No. 29837/09, decision of 14 September 2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in this case the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike this case out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlement were executed by the respondent state,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close its examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)3971

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

Petru Jestcov against the Republic of Moldova

(Application No. 50319/06, decision of 9 November 2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in this case the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike this case out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlement were executed by the respondent state,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close its examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4072

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Tănase against the Republic of Moldova

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”)73,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Tănase (7/08)

27 April 2010

Grand Chamber

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 plan, document DH-DD(2011)563);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

REPORT/PLAN OF ACTIONS

IN CASE OF TANASE v. MOLDOVA
(Application no. 7/08), Judgment of 27 April 2011) by the Grand Chamber
Final on 27 April 2010

Introductory case summary

Violation of the freedom of expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature caused by the enacted law preventing elected MPs with multiple nationalities from taking seats in Parliament.

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1

I. Individual measures

a) Payment

Date and status:

Only the compensation for costs and expenses in an amount of 8.881.83 EUR was awarded to the applicant.

Finished:

The amount of 8.881.83 EUR has been paid to the applicant on 13 July 2010.

b) Reopening of the domestic proceedings/restitution in integrum

Date and status:

It does not require such measures as reopening of the proceedings.

For restitutio in integrum see the general measures.

-

II. General measures

a) Publication

Date and measures

The judgment has been translated into Romanian and it is available on the official web page of the Ministry of Justice.

Another publication is being prepared for the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.

Finished

Available from 27 May 2010

On-going

b) Dissemination

Date and measures

The full translated copy of' the judgment had been forwarded to all concerned national authorities. It has been accompanied by the Governmental Agent’s comments on modalities of execution of the individual and general measures.

It was disseminated between the MPs being attached on the draft laws on amending the legal framework.

The Supreme Council of Magistrates.

The Supreme Court of Justice.

The General Prosecutor’s Office.

The Constitutional Court

The Parliament

c) Other imposed measures

Date and status

It was required to amend the framework laws on election of MPs with dual citizenship.

Finished on 31 December 2009'

The provisions of Law no.273 that banned certain categories of public servants to hold dual citizenship, including elected MPs with multiple nationalities from taking seats in Parliament, was amended by the Law no. 127 of 23 December 2009 in force from 31 December 2009. Respectively, the bans were lifted for all categories of public servants.

     


CONCLUSIONS

The Government considers that the above-mentioned measures that have been implemented by the authorities lead to a conclusion that the issues found by the Court in the present case had been solved. The consequences on the applicant's situation have been properly remediated and he was adequately redressed in his rights. It may be appropriate to consider that these measures have a deterrent effect and they would prevent occurrence of a similar situation(s) and violation(s). Consequently, the Government considers that they have fulfilled their obligation under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention and it is appropriate to strike the present case out from the lists of pending cases before the Committee of Ministers. For these reasons, the Government invites the Committee of Ministers to close their supervision process in the present case.

Chisinau. 29 July 2011

Lilian APOSTOL
on behalf of the Agent for the Government
of the Republic of Moldova

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4174

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

Siewnath against Netherlands

(Application No. 23784/08, decision of 12/10/2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in this case the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike this case out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlement were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close its examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4275

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

82 cases against Poland

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly-settlements were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close its examination.

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

BIELECKI, application No 9546/02

25/01/2011

SZCZYGIEL, application No 34354/02

08/03/2011

BOSOWSKI, application No 15349/03

02/11/2010

MALUSZCZAK, application No 25618/03

08/02/2011

ZDAN, application No 3826/04

08/03/2011

TOMCZYK, application No 7784/04

08/03/2011

BUDA, application No 45450/04

08/02/2011

ZAWAL, application No 1854/05

08/03/2011

SOKOLOWSKI, application No 7156/05

18/10/2010

DOKUPIL, application No 10121/05

08/02/2011

SNIEDA, application No 11031/06

22/03/2011

KARPINSKI, application No 15031/06

30/11/2010

GARBACZ, application No 15081/06

08/03/2011

DRADRACH, application No 30074/06

23/11/2010

BAK, application No 40258/06

08/03/2011

DEMIANIUK, application No 45200/06

08/03/2011

PLATEK, application No 46609/06

08/03/2011

TURZYNSKI, application No 11619/07

18/01/2011

GOLCZYK, application No 13805/07

29/06/2010

MARAS, application No 19184/07

25/01/2011

NOZOWNIK, application No 20973/07

17/05/2011

CICHOWSKI, application No 21195/07

29/06/2010

PIEKARZ, application No 28198/07

18/01/2011

Ryszard ZAJAC, application No 32471/07

22/06/2010

STACHOWSKA, application No 49545/07

05/04/2011

KUZLAK (no 3), application No 6484/08

08/03/2011

NIEWINSKI, application No 6711/08

11/01/2011

KURP, application No 9709/08

29/06/2010

KOWALCZYK (II), application No 24622/08

17/05/2011

GINTER, application No 28593/08

21/09/2010

HODUN, application No 31436/08

08/06/2010

KULCZYCKI, application No 34006/08

29/06/2010

GWOREK, application No 34838/08

18/10/2010

GMEREK, application No 43064/08

29/06/2010

KOZDOJ, application No 45769/08

19/01/2010

STENKA, application No 52431/08

02/11/2010

WISNIEWSKA, application No 60519/08

17/05/2011

SZYMBORSKI AND GUZ, application No 61069/08

23/11/2010

CHABOWSKI, application No 61538/08

05/10/2010

OSINSKI (II), application No 1422/09

17/05/2011

LASKOWSKI, application No 6164/09

16/11/2010

SAPIEJKA, application No 10058/09

14/12/2010

OCHNIO, application No 11316/09

21/09/2010

TARASIEWICZ, application No 11586/09

18/10/2010

KOKOCINSKI, application No 11747/09

03/05/2011

CHRABASZCZ, application No 11918/09

11/01/2011

ZMYSLOWSKA-KULA, application No 13226/09

07/12/2010

ZYCH, application No 16113/09

12/04/2011

SOBCZYK, application No 17197/09

21/09/2010

WARDZINSKI, application No 20769/09

24/05/2011

KALETA, application No 21081/09

31/08/2010

STRZYZEWSKI, application No 23345/09

31/08/2010

TOMCZAK, application No 23651/09

02/11/2010

DMOCH, application No 23910/09

22/02/2011

PERLINSKI (III), application No 26236/09

22/02/2011

JAROCKI (XVII), application No 27146/09

22/02/2011

WEZYK, application No 27664/09

18/10/2010

VOIGT, application No 30618/09

30/11/2010

SZUMINSKI, application No 40463/09

14/12/2010

HOSZOWSKA, application No 40992/09

03/05/2011

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

   

STRZYZEWSKI (II), application No 23118/10

02/11/2010

SZCZEPANSKI, application No 17182/10

08/03/2011

SARWA, application No 17170/10

08/03/2011

ANTONIAK, application No 15868/10

30/11/2010

WISNIEWSKI v, application No 15152/10

08/03/2011

KUCHARSKI, application No 14142/10

17/05/2011

DYGAS (II), application No 13415/10

14/09/2010

CYGAN, application No 10872/10

03/05/2011

BROZYNA, application No 6075/10

12/04/2011

WILKOJC, application No 2483/10

12/04/2011

LIPIEC, application No 514/10

29/03/2011

LASKOWSKI, application No 63397/09

23/11/2010

FINKE, application No 61406/09

18/10/2010

ZIMNY, application No 60407/09

05/10/2010

TKACZYK, application No 58051/09

02/11/2010

WODECKI, application No 50941/09

08/03/11

SZALECKI, application No 48598/09

22/02/2011

GASIOR, application No 47057/09

08/03/2011

ZIOLKOWSKI, application No 46826/09

07/09/2010

NITKOWSKI, application No 46176/09

06/07/2010

ORNAT, application No 45598/09

07/09/2010

BULATOWICZ, application No 43207/09

14/12/2010

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4376

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Bruczyński against Poland

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”)77,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Bruczyński (19206/03)

04/11/2008

04/02/2009

Recalling that a finding of a violation by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, 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(2011)1011E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT78

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Bruczyński against Poland

Case description

Bruczyński, application no. 19206/03, judgment of 4/11/2008, final on 4/02/2009

This case concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand between 2000 and 2004, given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, “relevant and sufficient” (violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

Moreover, the Court found that the applicant did not have at his disposal an enforceable right to compensation for his detention on remand, which it had found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention).

The Court noted, first, that the applicant could not avail himself of the remedy provided in Article 552 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since reliance on that provision presupposes that the criminal proceedings giving rise to remand have been terminated and the applicant's case was still pending before the Supreme Court when it delivered its judgment. Secondly, the applicant could not use the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on the State's liability for tort, as the applicant's detention ended before the entry into force of these provisions in September 2004.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

1. Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1,500 EUR

1,650 EUR

3,150 EUR

Paid on 09/03/2009

2. Individual measures

The applicant was released in 2004. The Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage occasioned by the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention.

In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

1. Violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

General measures are examined in the context of the Trzaska group of cases (application no 25792/94).

2. Violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention

The Court noted that on 1/09/2004 the Law of 17 June 2004 on amendments to the Civil Code and other statutes (Ustawa o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks cywilny oraz niektórych innych ustaw) entered into force. The relevant amendments have in essence been aimed at enlarging the scope of the State Treasury’s liability for tort. Following the 2004 Amendment, Article 4171 was introduced which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

      “3. If damage has been caused by failure to give a ruling [orzeczenie] or decision [decyzja] where there is a statutory duty to do so, reparation for [the damage] may be sought after it has been established in the relevant proceedings that the failure to give a ruling or decision was contrary to the law, unless other specific provisions provide otherwise.”

The Court observed that this provision provided a possibility to claim compensation in relation to detention on remand which had occurred after 1/09/2004 (see, in particular, §§ 67, 68 of the Court’s judgment in the present case and § 54 of the Court’s judgment of 30/01/2007 in the Ryckie case, no. 19583/05).

It should be further noted, that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). It was also sent to all courts of appeal with request to disseminate it among judges and to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution with request to include it in the training program addressed to judges and prosecutors.

In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.

III. Conclusions of the responding state

The Government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, in particular legislative changes and publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, will be sufficient to conclude that Poland has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention with respect to the breach of Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4479

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

14 cases against Portugal

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

MARQUES MARTINHO, application No. 3871/10

10/05/2011

POTE, application No. 37857/10

10/05/2011

REBELO, application No. 26998/10

10/05/2011

RIBEIRO MOTA, application No. 42434/10

10/05/2011

VARANDAS, application No. 24862/10

10/05/2011

FERRAZ DE CAMPOS and BOAVIDA CAMPOS, application No. 323/09

14/12/2010

FONSECA MENDES, application No. 58230/08

14/12/2010

GONCALVES RAMOS, application No. 9847/09

14/12/2010

GONCALVES RAMOS, application No. 13629/09

14/12/2010

GOUVEIA TEIXEIRA, application No. 351/09

14/12/2010

MOREIRA & COSTA - CONSTRUCOES, COMPRA E VENDA DE PROPRIEDADES, LDA and others, application No. 28761/09

08/02/2011

NETO, application No. 42910/09

14/12/2010

PEREIRA ORFAO, application No. 32329/09

22/02/2011

RODRIGUES DA FONSECA, application No. 3674/10

14/12/2010

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close their examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4580

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves No. 4 against Portugal

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”)81,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves No. 4 (41870/05)

14/04/2009

14/07/2009

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(2011)1111F);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Bilan d’action concernant l’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne

des droits de l’homme dans l’affaire Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves nº4

(R. Nº 41870/05) contre le Portugal

I – IDENTIFICATION DE L’AFFAIRE

Date de l’arrêt : 14 avril 2009

Nº de la requête : 41870/05

Nom du requérant : Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves

Brève description de la violation :

(Double violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention)

Violation du principe du procès équitable dans une procédure civile en 2004 en raison de la violation du principe d'égalité des armes, du fait du défaut de communication au requérant d'une note (« despacho de sustentaçâo ») rédigée par le juge de première instance à l'attention de la juridiction d'appel et de l'omission de la cour d'appel de se prononcer sur le moyen fondé sur la nullité du jugement de première instance (ce dernier sur la base du fait que le tribunal avait omis de se prononcer sur la demande d’astreinte).

II - MESURES DE CARACTÈRE INDIVIDUEL : La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a conclu que le constat de violation de l’article 6 § 1 représente en soi une satisfaction équitable suffisante pour le dommage moral éventuellement subi par le requérant. En outre, la Cour n’a pas aperçu de lien de causalité entre la violation constatée et le dommage matériel allégué et a rejeté par conséquent cette demande du requérant.

En tout état de cause, il faut souligner que dans la présente affaire, en ce qui concerne les conséquences qu’aurait pu avoir l’examen du moyen invoqué par le requérant pour lui-même, la Cour a souligné qu’il ne lui appartenait pas de spéculer en la matière, car la question relevait du droit interne. Selon les autorités portugaises, l’examen dudit moyen n’aurait aucune conséquence pour le requérant puisque le tribunal de première instance avait déjà en 2004 statué sur le fond de la question soulevé par ce dernier, en condamnant les défendeurs dans la procédure interne au versement d’une certaine somme d’argent au profit du requérant.

La possibilité de révision des décisions internes, suite à un arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, est prévue par le Code de procédure civile, avec la modification, introduite par le Décret-loi nº 303/07 du 24 août 2007, à l’article 771 (entrée en vigueur le 1er janvier 2008) et le Code de procédure pénale, avec les modifications introduites par la Loi nº 48/2007 du 29 août 2007, à l’article 449 (entrée en vigueur le 15 septembre 2007).

Bien que ce recours soit ouvert au requérant (lui incombant de l’exercer étant donné qu’il s’agit d’une procédure civile), les autorités portugaises ne voit cependant pas le besoin de donner suite à une éventuelle demande de révision de la décision interne définitive, sachant que dans la présente affaire le requérant a obtenu réparation. De toute façon, il incombe aux tribunaux nationaux de procéder à une évaluation des circonstances concrètes de chaque l’affaire en cas de demande de réouverture.

Par conséquent, il n’y a pas lieu d’adopter d’autres mesures de caractère individuel.

a) Paiement de l’indemnisation fixée (à titre de frais et dépens) : Date : 25 septembre 2009

Montant : 2.000 euros + 30,00 euros

b) Autres :

III - MESURES DE CARACTÈRE GÉNÉRAL :

a) Publication : - L’arrêt a été immédiatement mis en ligne sur le site officiel de la « Procuradoria-Geral da República » - Cabinet de documentation et droit comparé et traduit en portugais.

b) Communication et diffusion : L’arrêt a été communiqué au Conseil supérieur de la magistrature en vue de sa diffusion aux autorités compétentes afin de prévenir des violations similaires dans le futur.

c) Autres : Les violations de l’article 6§1 découlent de l’application de l’article 744 du Code de procédure civile, selon lequel il n’y avait pas d’obligation de transmettre aux parties les notes rédigées par le juge de première instance à l’intention de la juridiction d’appel (« despacho de sustentação »). Dans le cadre de la réforme du code de procédure civile opérée par le décret-loi nos 303/07 du 24/08/2007, entré en vigueur le 1/01/2008, l’article 744 de ce code fut abrogé (comme d’ailleurs il est dit au § 13 de l’arrêt de la Cour). Aujourd’hui, donc, les notes rédigées par le juge de première instance à la juridiction d’appel doivent être transmis aux parties.

En ce qui concerne la non appréciation par la juridiction d’appel de l’incidente de nullité, celle-ci reste comme étant un cas isolé.

IV - CONCLUSION

Par conséquent, tenant compte du fait que dans la présente affaire le requérant a obtenu réparation et également que l’article du Code de procédure civile qui prévoyait l’existence du « despacho de sustentaçâo » a été entretemps abrogé, les autorités portugaises estiment que les mesures mentionnées ci-dessus s’avèrent suffisantes en vue de l’exécution de l’arrêt et qu’il n’y a pas lieu d’adopter d’autres mesures de caractère individuel ou général.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4682

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Albert against Romania

(Application No. 31911/03, judgment of 16 February 2010, final on 16 May 2010)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the unfairness of proceedings brought by the applicant to challenge a fine imposed on him for a minor offence, due to the courts' failure to address his submissions and grounds for appeal (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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(2012)47

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Albert against Romania

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns the unfairness of proceedings brought by the applicant under Government Ordinance No. 2 of 12 July 2001 on the legal regime of the minor offences (“G.O. No. 2/2001”) to challenge a fine imposed on him for a minor offence (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

In February and May 2003, domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s opposition to the fine at first instance and on appeal, without addressing his argument that the incident report consigning the acts he was charged with did not contain the mandatory information required by law and was therefore null and void. As enforcement were being brought against him, the applicant was compelled to pay the entire amount of the fine, i.e. 100,000,000 Romanian lei.

The European Court considered that the gravity of the sanction imposed on the applicant made it “criminal” in nature and that Article 6 was therefore applicable in its criminal aspect. The European Court noted that the first-instance court had failed to address decisive arguments raised by the applicant and the appellate court had failed to answer the applicant’s grounds for appeal based on those shortcomings and to redress them. The European Court concluded that these flaws in the domestic proceedings had deprimed the applicant of a fair trial.

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

2 755 EUR

2 000 EUR

2 000 EUR

6 755 EUR

Paid on 13/08/2010

b) Individual measures

The amount awarded by the European Court as just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damages covered the amount of the fine the applicant had to pay following the proceedings at issue. In addition, the applicant may request the publication of the judgment in the Official Journal and lodge a request for reopening of the trial under Article 322, paragraph 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure – applicable to proceedings of the same nature as that at the origin of this case– within one year of the publication.

Consequently, no further individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

As regards the application of the basic guarantees in criminal trials to the proceedings brought under G.O. No. 2/2001 to challenge penalties imposed for minor offences, the government refers to the measures implemented in the framework of the execution of the Anghel case (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)300).

The general measures taken by the Romanian authorities to ensure that the guarantees of Article 6 resulting from this judgment are secured by the domestic courts are presented in Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)71 adopted in the Boldea case (judgment of 15/02/2007).

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

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

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4783

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

2 cases against Romania

    Case, Application No.

    Date of decision

    Guiu and others, applications Nos 26844/03, 26847/03, 26848/03, 26849/03 and 26850/03

    10/05/2011

    Minculescu-Vlaşca, application No 26010/03

    12/04/2011

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close their examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4884

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Stanca Popescu against Romania

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”)85,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Stanca Popescu (8727/03)

074/07/2009

07/10/2009

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(2012)185F);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Bilan d'action

Pour l'affaire Stanca Popescu c. Roumanie

(requête no 8727/03)

A titre préliminaire, il est à remarquer que l'affaire concernée vise la méconnaissance du principe de la sécurité des rapports juridiques civils due au fait de l'admission par les instances internes de l'action en révision (voie extraordinaire de recours en droit roumain) ce qui a déterminé, à la fin de la procédure, le rejet de l'action en revendication prononcée initialement en faveur de la requérante.

Dès le début, le Gouvernement précise que la présente affaire ne relève pas un problème structurel ou à grande échelle dans le système judiciaire roumain, étant plutôt un cas particulier, lié à la modalité dont une instance judiciaire a interprété les dispositions légales pertinentes.

En ce qui concerne les mesures individuelles, le Gouvernement a l'honneur de vous transmettre ci-jointe la confirmation de paiement des sommes octroyées à la requérante par la Cour Européenne dans l'affaire précitée. Conformément à l'arrêt de la Cour, le préjudice moral subi par la requérante à cause de la violation du principe de la sécurité des rapports juridiques, est effacé par le biais du montant octroyé à titre de dommage moral, à savoir le montant de 5000 EUR. Il est à remarquer le fait que, dans le contexte de l'analyse de l'article 41 de la Convention, la Cour a expressément précisé qu'elle n'appréciait pas fondée la demande de la requérante visant l'octroi de dommage matériel.

Toujours dans le contexte des mesures individuelles, le Gouvernement indique le fait que selon les dispositions du code de procédure civile roumain, à savoir l'article 322 point 9, la requérante avait le droit de saisir les instances judiciaires avec une demande de révision de l'arrêt en cause. Ladite voie de recours doit être introduite dans un certain délai. Ainsi, tout comme la Cour Européenne l'a constaté maintes fois dans sa jurisprudence (voir l'affaire Sfrijan c. Roumanie, du 22 novembre 2007), le cadre législatif en vigueur permet l'effacement de toutes les conséquences de la violation constatée par elle, tout en utilisant la voie de la révision.

Certes, le principe de la disponibilité est applicable aussi dans ladite procédure, les parties étant les seules en mesure d'interjeter un tel recours et d'établir les limites de celui-ci. En l'espèce, il est à remarquer que selon les informations fournies par le tribunal de première instance de Costesti, le jugement no 906 du 23 juillet 2002 n'a pas fait, jusqu'à présent, l'objet d'une telle voie de recours, la requérante ne l'interjetant pas.

Partant, dans l'opinion du Gouvernement, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne s'imposerait dans la présente affaire.

Pour ce qui est des mesures générales, le Gouvernement aimerait présenter les observations suivantes:

En l'espèce, la base de l'admission de l'action en révision le représentait l'article 322 point 4 du Code de procédure civile prévoyant que : «la révision d'une décision devenue définitive à la suite d'un appel ou qui n'a pas fait l'objet d'un appel, ainsi que d'une décision prononcée en recours (...) peut être demandée dans les cas suivants :

(4) si un juge, un témoin ou un expert qui avait participé à la procédure a été définitivement condamné pour avoir commis une infraction concernant l'affaire en question (....); dans le cas où il n'est plus possible de constater ladite infraction par la voie d'une décision pénale, l'instance qui examine la demande en révision doit se prononcer tout d'abord (...) sur l'existence ou l'inexistence de l'infraction.

En conformité avec l'article 324 du Code de procédure civile, le délai pour déposer une demande en révision est d'un mois, étant calculé, dans les hypothèses prévues par l'article 322 point (4), «à partir du jour où la partie [demandant la révision] a pris connaissance de la décision de la juridiction pénale portant condamnation du juge, du témoin ou de l'expert (...) ; [ou] en l'absence d'une telle décision, à partir de la date à laquelle la partie [demandant la révision] a pris connaissance des circonstances qui rendent impossible le constat de l'infraction par la voie d'une décision pénale, mais en tout cas au plus tard dans les trois ans qui suivent (...) la naissance de ces circonstances».

Le raisonnement de la Cour constatant la méconnaissance de l'article 6 par. 1 de la Convention se pencha sur la motivation rendue par les instances internes à l'admission de l'action en révision. Ainsi, celle-ci nota que les instances internes ont admis ladite action au motif que l'expert désigné dans la cause aurait commis l'infraction de faux témoignage dans la mesure où il n'avait pas correctement pris en compte les dimensions du terrain, dans la situation où la partie ayant interjeté la révision aurait eu la possibilité de contester le rapport d'expertise en jeu en formulant des objections.

Dès lors, la Cour constata que: «les motifs avancés au cours de la procédure en révision et acceptés par le tribunal de première instance portaient sur la manière dont l'expert avait réalisé l'expertise. Or, une éventuelle erreur de celui-ci dans la délimitation des terrains aurait pu être réparée au niveau des voies ordinaires de recours, en évitant ainsi la remise en cause d'une décision judiciaire définitive (...). Par ailleurs, aux yeux de la Cour, seules les erreurs de fait qui ne sont devenues visibles qu'après la fin d'une procédure judiciaire peuvent justifier une dérogation au principe de la sécurité juridique au motif qu'elles n'ont pas pu être corrigées par le biais des voies ordinaires de recours (...). Or, en l'espèce, c'est par l'absence de pourvoi en recours de la part des voisins que l'arrêt du 26 mai 1997 du tri départemental confirmant le jugement du 28 octobre 1996 du tribunal de première instance était devenu définitif»

Au vu de ce qui précède, le Gouvernement est d'avis que la violation constatée par la Cour dans l'affaire Stanca Popescu c. Roumanie n'est pas due à la loi interne, à une contradiction manifeste entre celle-ci et la Convention, mais elle trouve son origine dans la motivation rendue par les juridictions nationales dans le cas d'espèce, à savoir leur interprétation des textes légaux.

De plus, il convient également de noter que la réouverture des procédures est commune au système judiciaire de plusieurs Etats membres, fait constaté aussi par la Cour dans sa jurisprudence. Ainsi, dans l'affaire Pravednaya c. Russie précitée, la Cour a retenu que: « This procedure does not by itself contradict the principle of legal certainty in so far as it is used to correct miscarriages of justice The Court's task is to determine whether in the present case the procedure was applied in a manner which is compatible with Article 6».

De même, dans l'affaire Bota c. Roumanie, arrêt du 4 novembre 2008, par 34, la Cour a rappelé que : « l'exigence de sécurité juridique n'est pas absolue, la simple possibilité de rouvrir une procédure pénale étant donc à première vue compatible avec la Convention, y compris avec les garanties découlant de l'article 6.

Selon la jurisprudence constante de la Cour, tel qu'exprimée dans l'affaire Mitrea c. Roumanie arrêt du 29 juillet 2008, par.25 et Lungoci c. Roumanie arrêt du 26 janvier 2006, par 56: « The Court itself recommends sometimes the re-opening of proceedings as the most appropriate reparatory measure when the domestic proceedings have not satisfied the Article 6 requirements.

En outre, au niveau du Conseil de l'Europe, la réouverture de procédures internes revêt une importance fondamentale pour l'exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne, aspect qui découle également de certains arrêts où la Cour a retenu que pour les intéressées «le redressement le plus approprié serait, en principe, de rejuger ou de rouvrir la procédure en temps utile et dans le respect des exigences de l'article 6 de la Convention» (affaire losif et autres c. Roumanie, arrêt du 20 décembre 2007, par. 99 ; voir aussi l'affaire Spinu c. Roumanie, arrêt du 29 avril 2008, par. 82 et Stoian c. Roumanie, arrêt du 12 octobre 2010).

Ayant en vue les aspects mentionnés ci-dessus et aussi le caractère très spécifique de la violation constatée en l'espèce, notamment à cause de la modalité dans laquelle les instances judiciaires ont interprété les dispositions légales incidentes, le Gouvernement estime que la publication et la large diffusion de l'arrêt de la CEDH auprès des autorités internes sont en mesure de prévenir des violations similaires.

A cet égard, le Gouvernement aimerait préciser que l'arrêt de la CEDH a été présenté dans le recueil de jurisprudence Les arrêts de la CEDH dans les affaires contre la Roumanie 1994-2009, Ed. Universitarà, 2010.

Le Gouvernement aimerait mentionner également que l'arrêt a été traduit en roumain et publié dans le Journal Officiel n° 179 du 14 mars 2011.

Ledit arrêt a été aussi transmis au Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature en vue de sa diffusion auprès de toutes les juridictions internes.



Ayant en vue l'effet direct des dispositions de la Convention et de la jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne dans le droit interne roumain, selon l'article 20 la Constitution, le Gouvernement considère que lesdites mesures générales sont aptes et suffisantes afin d'exclure une potentielle future violation de la Convention.

Prenant en considération les aspects mentionnés ci-dessus, de l'avis du Gouvernement aucune autre mesure générale et individuelle ne saurait être prise en l'espèce. Partant, le Gouvernement considère que la surveillance n'est plus nécessaire et sollicite respectueusement au Comité des Ministres la clôture de cette affaire.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4986

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

2 cases against San Marino

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

BOLLINI AND BIZZOCCHI, application No. 31540/09

12/10/2010

MULARONI, application No. 51827/08

14/12/2010

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close their examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)5087

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

E.S. and others against the Slovak Republic

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”)88,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

E.S. et autres (8227/04)

15/09/2009

15/12/2009

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(2012)129E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

App. No. 8227104

E. S. and others v. Slovakia, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a failure of the domestic authorities to take appropriate measures in 2001 to protect the applicants from ill-treatment (physical and sexual abuse) inflicted by theirs husband and father, and a corresponding failure to meet the positive obligation to respect their family and private life (violation of Articles 3 and 8).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Cost and expenses

Total

 

8 000 euros

2 000 euros

10 000 euros

Paid on 28/01/2010

b) Individual measures

The applicants received just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages. If similar problems with the first applicant's husband arise again, the applicants can benefit from the changes to the law described under the general measures. No other individual measures seem to be necessary.

II. General measures

a) Legislation

The legislative changes were made before the judgment of the European Court has been adopted. The recent law of the Slovak Republic meets the requirements of the European Convention. As of 1 January 2003 the court may, under Section 76 § 1(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, through an interim measure impose upon the party not to enter temporarily a house or an apartment occupied by a close person or person in his/her care or education in relation to whom there are reasons for he/she being suspected of violence. As of 1 January 2003, under Section 705a of the Civil Code, if a further cohabitation is unsupportable due to the physical or mental violence or threats of such violence from a husband or former husband, which is the joint user of an apartment, or from a close person jointly using an apartment, based on a motion of one of a married couple or former married couple the court can limit a right of use of the other of a married couple or former married couple or exclude her/him totally from the right of use of an apartment. Under Section 712a § 8 in fine of the Civil Code, if a former husband, during the marriage or after the divorce of the marriage committed the psychical or mental violence against the other from a married couple or against the close person living with him in an apartment, the court shall decide that he is not entitled to a substitute dwelling. Under the new legislation interim measures are available to ensure that the authorities would be able to act quickly. Therefore, there is no need to adopt legislative changes or other measures

b) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justidne Revue) No. 12/2009, the juridical journal distributed to ail courts in the Slovak Republic and available also for subscribers.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava. 1 February 2012

Marica Pirošíková

Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)5189

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

DMD group, A.S against the Slovak Republic

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”)90,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

DMD GROUP, A.S (19334/03)

05/10/2010

05/01/2011

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(2011)1150E);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

App. No. 19334/03

DMD GROUP, a. s. v. Slovakia, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a violation of the right to a hearing before a tribunal established by law due to the decision by the president of a district court in June 1999 to reassign to himself a case (brought by the applicant company seeking enforcement of a financial claim against a major company involved in arms production) and then rule on it in private in the same day (violation of Article 6 § 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Cost and expenses

Total

 

4 000 euros

-

4 000 euros

Paid on 04/02/2011

b) Individual measures

Since 24 June 2005 the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possibility to reopen the domestic proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Section 228 § 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the proceedings may challenge a final judgment by a petition seeking to reopen the proceedings if there exists a decision delivered by European Court of Human Rights, in which it found that a decision taken by national court, or the proceedings preceding such a decision, had violated the fundamental rights or freedoms of the party to the proceedings, whereby substantial consequences arising from such violation have not been duly remedied by the awarded just satisfaction. Under Section 230 § 1, a petition for reopening of proceedings must be filed within the time limit of three months from the day on which the person proposing the reopening learned about the reason for reopening or from the day on which he/she could use this reason (a subjective time limit). Pursuant to Section 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the cases referred to in Section 228 § 1 (d), a petition for reopening of proceedings may also be filed after the expiry of the period of three years from the day on which the judgment became final (an objective time limit).

No other individual measures seem to be necessary.

II. General measures

a) Legislation

The Regulation no. 66/1992 Coll. on the Administrative Rules for District and Regional Courts had been in force until 1 January 2006. Since then the new legal regulation is in force. The recent legal regulation on assigning cases to judges (chambers) including court officers is regulated by Act no. 757/2004 Coll. on Courts and the Regulation of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic no. 543/2005 Coll. on the Administering and Secretarial Rules for district courts, regional courts, the Special Court and military courts.

The basic rule for assigning cases to judges is that of their random assigning, using whereby the technical as well program means designated for this purpose - the so called electronic registry. Cases are assigned by random selection to judges, chambers and court officers according to the subject matter of the proceedings which means that upon receiving the petition by the court registry the court employee shall immediately register it with the respective court registry and run the system of random selection (generation) of the legal judge. After terminating the random selection the employee of the court registry shall issue the party to the proceedings a confirming receipt of the petition containing data about the legal judge in charge in the given case. The Act expressly defines exemptions from assigning cases via electronic registry being some of the decisions issued in the pre-trial proceedings upon the Code of Criminal Procedure which must be handled without further delay (for example taking into custody, establishing the legal counsel etc.) or which are subject to confidential regime (the use of info-technical means), or as the case may be, certain decisions in civil proceedings (for instance preliminary measures in case of domestic violence), where the use of the electronic registry is limited only during the usual working time of the court.

In these instances cases are not assigned randomly by means of electronic registry but according to the rules established in the courts work schedule. Cases of execution (such as in case of DMD Group, a.s. v. Slovakia) do not belong within these exceptions. In general, the appointed court employee, i.e. the senior court officer shall decide in execution cases thus are these assigned to the latter by random selection. Judges shall exceptionally be assigned execution cases (for instance in knocking down to an auction) and if yes, by random assigning thereof. The law of the Slovak republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the legislation now in force will prevent similar violations in the future.

b) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justična Revue) No. 2/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 17 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and district courts and to the Supreme Court with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of these courts. By a letter of 3 October 2011 the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all constitutional judges about it.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 7 December 2011

Marica Pirošíková

Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)5291

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Zubal’ against the Slovak Republic

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”)92,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Zubal’ (44065/06)

09/11/2010

09/02/2011

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(2011)956E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

App. No. 44065/06

Zubal' v. Slovakia, judgment of 09111/2010, final on 09/02/2011

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant's right to respect for his home due to a judicial order for the search of his house, in the context of criminal proceedings against several people suspected of having produced and sold forged paintings. In June 2005, the police conducted a search of the applicant's house, in his absence and without having heard him. The applicant had bought one of these paintings and being the injured party he would have had no reason for refusing to cooperate with police, and could have put the painting at their disposal (violation of Article 8).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Cost and expenses

Total

 

3 000 euros

-

3 000 euros

Paid on 17/03/2011

II. General measures

a) Legislation

The law of the Slovak Republic meets the requirements of the European Convention. The search of a person's home is permissible where there is a justifiable suspicion that an abject which is important for the purposes of criminal proceedings is located therein or that a person suspected of an offence is hiding there. The law allows for the search of premises only when it has been impossible to attain the purpose of the search by means of a prior request addressed to the person whose premises are to be searched. The law requires that the person whose premises are to be searched, or an adult member of his or her household, should be allowed to be present during the search. The violation which the Court found in this case was a result of application of the law to concrete case. This was an isolated case (see §§ 37 — 39 of the judgment) and, accordingly, does not necessitate adoption of additional measures.

b) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 2/2011 By the letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 28 October 2011, the judgment was distributed to ail regional and district courts, to the Supreme Court, to the General Prosecutor and to the President of Police Corps in order to avoid possible similar violations. By the letter of 3 October 2011, the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to notify of the judgment (notably of the conclusions of the European Court as to the admissibility of the application) ail judges of the Constitutional Court.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 28 October 2011

Marica Pirošíková

Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)5393

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Lexa against Slovak Republic

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”)94,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Lexa (34761/03)

05/01/2010

05/04/2010

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(2011)1165E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

App. No. 34761/03

Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 2), judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right adequately to challenge the grounds for his detention (violation of Article 5 § 4). The applicant, a former director of the Slovakian intelligence service, was arrested in December 2002 on charges of incitement to commit murder, abuse of authority and mishandling of classified state secrets. The applicant lodged a complaint against the Bratislava I District Courts decision to remand him in custody. On 7 January 2003 he requested that his counsel should be allowed to consult the file. The regional court allowed the counsel to examine the file from 9 to 12 a. m. on 14 January 2003. It dismissed the applicant's complaint at a session held in camera on 14 January 2003, shortly after the applicant's counsel had consulted the file. The applicant was released in June 2003 and the proceedings against him were discontinued in September 2006 for lack of proof.

The European Court considered that although the regional court allowed the applicant's counsel to consult the file, neither he nor the applicant had had sufficient opportunity to take cognisance of the evidence; they had had no practical possibility of submitting arguments, written or oral, to challenge its reliability (§§ 72-73 of the judgment).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Cost and expenses

Total

 

2 000 euros

5 000 euros

7 000 euros

Paid on 06/07/2010

b) Individual measures

The violation found appears to be of an isolated nature. No other individual measures seem to be necessary.

II. General measures

a) Legislation

Article 69§1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Act no. 301/2005 Coll.), effective from 1 January 2006, gives the accused person the right to consult the file with certain restrictions enumerated therein. Article 69 § 2 provides that, at the pre-trial stage, the public prosecutor or the police authority can only refuse a person access to a file concerning him or her for exceptional reasons, mainly if no such measures preventing the frustration or substantial hindering in accomplishing the purpose of the criminal proceedings may be taken. The prosecutor shall be obliged to speedily review the gravity of the reasons upon which the law enforcement authority rejected such right upon the individual's request affected by the rejection. If the right to consult the file and the remaining right in connection therewith listed in section 1 were rejected by the prosecutor upon grave reasons upon the individual's request affected by the rejection, the superior prosecutor shall be obliged to speedily review the reasonability of such rejection.

With effect from 1 February 2009, under Article 69§6, the pre-trial judge shall have identical rights as the law enforcement authority has if dealing with the file within its competence during the proceedings. However, if the pre-trial judge in the proceedings on detention prior to taking the decision on it rejects the accused or the counsel the right to consult the entire file, concurrently with the rejection of such right it shall mark and grant access of such consultation to the accused or its counsel to those parts of the file containing facts or evidence considered in deciding on detention pursuant to Articles 71 to 87 and 339. The Code of Criminal Procedure (the Act no. 301/2005 Coll.) was not in force at the time of the violation in this case but that nonetheless, the applicant benefitted from a similar provision under Article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act no. 141/1961 Coll.) then in force.

The law of the Slovak Republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the case does not require adoption of legislative measures.

b) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 4/2010. The judgment was sent to the General Prosecutor, to the Constitutional Court, to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and was distributed to all regional and district courts.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 13 December 2011

Marica Pirošiková

Agent of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)5495

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Lawyers Partners a.s against the Slovak Republic

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”)96,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Lawyers Partners a.s (54252/07)

16/06/2009

06/11/2009

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(2012)71E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

Lawyer Partners, a.s. v. Slovakia,

(App. Nos. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08,

3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08 and 29557/08), judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 06/11/2009

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a violation of the applicant company's right of access to a court due to domestic courts' refusal in 2006 to register legal actions filed by the company in electronic form (violation of Article 6 § 1). Provision for electronic filing has been included in the Code of Civil Procedure since 2002, and the European Court of Human Rights held that the applicant company could not be reproached for having availed itself of that facility, which was entirely in keeping with the volume of cases pursued (over 70 000 actions). The European Court held that the refusal imposed a disproportionate limitation on the applicant company's right to use efficient means to present its cases to a court. The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant company's complaints as having been lodged outside the statutory two-month time-limit, as the applicant had earlier learned that the district courts lacked the necessary equipment and had failed to file a complaint at that time.

Since 2008 the Constitutional Court has systematically approached similar cases in the manner prescribed by the European Court, namely that the statutory time-limit for lodging a complaint commences from the date of notification of the court's refusal to register the specific submission. In those cases the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention and ordered the ordinary courts concerned to process the actions.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

The European Court awarded the applicant company 10 000 euros as just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of real opportunities, as well as in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Further it awarded the applicant company 8 000 euros for costs and expenses. Total sum of 18 000 euros has been paid to the applicant company on 22/01/2010.

b) Other individual measures

The European Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress in such cases, in which the applicant has been denied access to a tribunal because of an unjustified refusal to register its actions, would be to register the original submissions as if they had been filed on the date when the applicant company first submitted them and to deal with them in keeping with ail the requirements of a fair trial (see § 62 of the judgment).

In the period from the end of 2006 and pending 2007 the district courts had been provided with the technical equipment for dealing with the actions signed with the qualified electronic signature. From 2008 the district courts effectively register the electronic actions.

On February 2010 the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights requested the district courts concerned to register the actions of the applicant company with the original date of submittal in 2006 or to register them with the actual date but while dealing with them, for purpose of examination of the prescription time limit, to consider them as submitted in 2006. In reply to the letter of the Agent of the Government, several district courts (Humenné District Court, Trenčin District Court, Dolný Kubín District Court, Povasžkà Bystrica District Court, Bardejov District Court, Lučenec District Court, Piešt'any District Court) informed the Office of the Agent that notwithstanding their repeated requests, the applicant company has not submitted the original electronic motions on DVD's in order to register them and dealing with them (original electronic motions on DVD's were returned to the applicant in 2006).

On December 2011 the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights requested the district courts concerned to submit the information whether the actions of the applicant company have been already registered and are dealt with.

In reply to the letter of the Agent of the Government, Svidnik District Court, Piešt'any District Court (to which the part of the actions were transmitted from Trnava District Court) and Trnava District Court informed the Office of the Agent that all proceedings on the electronic actions submitted by the applicant company had already been terminated with final effects.

However, Dolný Kubín District Court, Nové Zàmky District Court, Rimavskà Sobota District Court, Levice District Court, Lučenec District Court, Humenné District Court, Kežmarok District Court, Bardejov District Court, Vel’ký Krtíč District Court, Trenčín District Court and Povasžkà Bystrica District Court informed the Office of the Agent that notwithstanding their repeated requests, the applicant company still has not submitted the original electronic motions on DVD's in order to register them and dealing with them (the applicant company alleges that the original electronic motions on DVD's were submitted to the European Court). As the district courts are fully prepared to register the electronic actions of the applicant company but the applicant company does not cooperate, the Government is of the opinion that no other measures are required.

Il. General measures

a) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 10/2009. In June 2009, the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights sent the judgment and its Slovak translation to all district courts concerned.

b) Other measures

Article 42§1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended with effect from 1 May 2002, provides that submissions to a court can be made in written form, orally into the record, by means of electronic devices subject to the submission bearing a secured electronic signature in accordance with a special law, by telegraph or by fax. The violation found in this case had its base in the fact that in 2006 the district courts lacked the necessary equipment for registering the electronic actions. In the period from the end of 2006 and pending 2007 the district courts had been provided with the technical equipment for dealing with the actions signed with the qualified electronic signature. From 2008 the district courts effectively register the electronic actions.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 23 January 2012

Marica Pirošiková

Agent of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)5597

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Kvasnica against the Slovak Republic

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”)98,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Kvasnica (72094/01)

09/06/2009

09/09/2009

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(2011)266);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT of 12 April 2011

App. No. 72094/01

Kvasnica, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the interception of the applicant's professional telephone communications in the context of a criminal investigation into the financial activities of a group for which the applicant acted as a legal representative. The Court held that, on the basis of the documents before it, the procedure for ordering and supervising the implementation of the interception had net been shown to have fully complied with the requirements of the relevant law. Nor had it been demonstrated that the procedure had kept the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence to what was 'necessary in a democratic society' (violation of Article 8).

I. Individual measures

The applicant stated that he considered the finding by the Court of a breach of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention appropriate satisfaction. Evidence of the intercepted communications has been destroyed

II. General measures

a) Publication

The judgment was translated into the Slovak language and in compliance with the existing practice of publishing of all judgments against the Slovak republic it was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) no. 10/2009

b) Dissemination

On 20 October 2009, the judgment was distributed to all regional courts and to the President of Police Corps by the circular letter of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic. The presidents of the regional courts and the President of the Police Corps have been requested to notify of the judgment ail judges of the regional courts and the district courts in their jurisdiction dealing with the wiretapping agenda and all police departments dealing with the wiretapping agenda, in order to avoid possible similar violations.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 12 April 2011

Marica Pirošiková

Agent of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)5699

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

K.H. and others against the Slovak Republic

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”)100,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

K.H and others (32881/04)

28/04/2009

06/11/2009

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(2011)264);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT of 5 April 2011

App, No. 32881/04

K.H. and others, judgment of 28104/2009, final on 08111/2009

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a failure to ensure respect for the applicants' private and family lives and a limitation imposed on the applicants' access to a court. In 2002, the domestic authorities' refused to allow the applicants, eight Slovak women of Roma ethnic origin, to photocopy their own medical records when they suspected that their infertility might have resulted from a sterilisation procedure performed in hospitals during caesarean deliveries, denying them the opportunity to bring a claim for damages (violation of Arts.8 and 6§1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

 

28 000 euros

8 000 euros

36 000 euros

Paid on 22/01/2010

b) Individual measures

According to the legislation introduced in 2004 (see below - general measures), seven of the applicants were able make photocopies of their files. In relation to the second applicant, who was informed that her medical record was lest, the European Court considered that she should seek redress before the domestic courts as regards any alleged negligent handling of her medical records.

II. General measures

a) Legislation

Section 16 of the Health Care Act 1994, which granted patients or their legal representative the right to receive only excerpts from medical records, was repealed on 01/01/2005 by the Health Care Act 2004. Section 25 of the 2004 Act expressly empowers patients or those authorised by them to make copies of medical records.

b) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Justična Revue No. 6-7/2009.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 5 April 2011

Marica Pirošíková

Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)57101

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Hudáková against the Slovak Republic

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”)102,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Hudáková (23083/05)

27/04/2010

27/07/2010

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(2012)128E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

App. No. 23083/05

Hudáková and others v. Slovakia, judgment of 27/04/2010, final on 27/07/2010

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the unfairness of civil proceedings brought against the applicants due to the failure of the Supreme Court to communicate written observations submitted by the plaintiffs in July 2004 to the applicants (violation of Article 6 § 1). In 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law: the appeal on point of law was net rejected on the grounds that it failed to meet the requirements for admissibility of the appeal, the Supreme Court judgment dismissed the appeal in its merits. It indicated inter alia that the plaintiffs had submitted observations on this appeal. These observations were not communicated to the applicants.

The European Court noted that the onus had been on the Supreme Court to afford the applicants an opportunity to comment on the written observations Moreover, the opposing party in the proceedings, unlike the applicants, had access to all the information in the case file. In permitting the plaintiffs to submit written observations and denying the applicants sight of and the opportunity to comment on these observations the Supreme Court had failed to treat the parties equally (see §§ 29 — 30 of the judgment).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

The European Court held that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants and dismissed the remainder of their claim for just satisfaction (see §§ 39 and 42 of the judgment)

b) Individual measures

The Government consider that this case does not call for the reopening of domestic proceedings. Notwithstanding, the Government note that on 24 June 2005 an amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure was adopted (with effect of 1 September 2005). This amendment provides for the possibility to reopen the domestic proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Section 228 § 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the proceedings may challenge a final judgment by a petition seeking to reopen the proceedings if there exists a decision delivered by European Court of Human Rights, in which it found that a decision taken by national court, or the proceedings preceding such a decision, had violated the fundamental rights or freedoms of the party to the proceedings, whereby substantial consequences arising from such violation have not been duly remedied by the awarded just satisfaction.

Under Section 230 § 1, a petition for reopening of proceedings must be filed within the time limit of three months from the day on which the person proposing the reopening learned about the reason for reopening or from the day on which he/she could use this reason (a subjective time limit). Pursuant to Section 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the cases referred to in Section 228 § 1 (d), a petition for reopening of proceedings may also be filed after the expiry of the period of three years from the day on which the judgment became final (an objective time limit).

Il. General measures

a) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 10/2010. The judgment was sent to the Supreme Court. The President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court informed the Agent of the Government that all judges of the Supreme Court were notified of the judgment

b) Domestic court practice

In response to the above-mentioned letter of the Agent, the President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court stated that in cases when the first instance court failed to send observations on appeal on points of law to the opposing party, the Supreme Court, with regard to the judgment in the case Hudáková and others, sent those observations to the opposing party itself.

At the same time the President noted that, with regard to the judgment in the case Hudáková and others, the Supreme Court in several decisions delivered by the end of 2010 and during 2011 expressed the legal view that "the failure to deliver the party's comments on the appeal of the other party (appellant) creates the state of inequality of the parties in the proceedings before the court shall be contrary to the principle of equality of arms, interfering thus with the right to a fair trial". The Supreme Court considered the conduct when the appeal court failed to deliver the comments of one party on the appeal lodged by the other party to the latter (the appellant) as an error in the proceedings consisting in the prevention of acting before the court, thus an admissible ground for an appeal pursuant to Article 237f of the Code of Civil Procedure. In those proceedings affected by such error it quashed the appellate judgments and remanded the matter for further hearing to the appellate court (see the decisions of the Supreme Court file nos. 4 Cdo 141/2010, 5 Cdo 200/2010, 1 Cdo 187/2010. 5 Cdo 270/2010, 5 Cdo 92/2011). In case the comments of one party on the action lodged by the other party to the latter (the plaintiff) failed on delivery already at the first instance court, the Supreme Court quashed not only the appellate judgment but also that of first instance and remanded the matter to the first instance court for further hearing (see the decision of the Supreme Court file no. 5 Cdo 66/2010).

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 1 February 2012

Marica Pirošiková

Agent of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)58103

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Hajduova against the Slovak Republic

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”)104,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Hajduova (2660/03)

30/11/2010

28/02/2011

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(2011)962E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

App. No. 2660/03

Hajduova v. Slovakia, judgment of 30/11/2010, final on 28/02/2011

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a violation of the right to private and family life due to the authorities' failure to protect the applicant from her former husband's abusive and threatening behaviour. In January 2002, the District Court failed to ensure that her ex-husband be placed in a hospital for the purpose of psychiatric treatment immediately after his conviction for having attacked her in public and uttered death threats (violation of Article 8).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

4 000 euros

1 000 euros

5 000 euros

Paid on 05/04/2011

b) Individual measures

On 22 February 2002 the District Court arranged for psychiatric treatment of the applicant's ex-husband. He was consequently transported to a hospital in Plešivec (see §13 of the judgment). On 22 April 2002 the District Court, at suit of the hospital, changed the inpatient treatment of the applicant's ex-husband to the outpatient treatment. According to the hospital record, the applicant's ex-husband is conscious of the necessity of the treatment and voluntarily undergoes it, his mental condition is stable. As a result of the applicant's successful treatment in hospital, the Government is of the opinion that no further individual measures are required.

II. General measures

a) Legislation

In this case, Article 8 was violated because of the District Court's failure to comply with its statutory obligation to order the applicant's ex-husband detention for psychiatric treatment following his conviction on 7 January 2002 (see § 52 of the judgment). The case therefore does not require adoption of legislative measures and the law of the Slovak Republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention.

Under Section 445§1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the president of the chamber shall order protective treatment to the medical institution where it should be accomplished. However, if the protective treatment was imposed alongside unconditional imprisonment and the prison or hospital for accused and convicted dispose with sufficient conditions for such treatments, the president of the chamber may order the preventive treatment to be performed during imprisonment. Under Section 445§2, shall the person imposed protective treatment be dangerous for his/her community when at liberty, the president of the chamber shall without further delays provide for his/her delivery to the medical institution; otherwise he/she may be provided adequate time for procuring his/her affairs.

b) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Justična Revue No. 4/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 18 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and district courts with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of these courts. By a letter of 18 October 2011 the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all constitutional judges about it.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 3 November 2011

Marica Pirošíková

Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)59105

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

110 cases against the Slovak Republic

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 judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Application

Case

Judgment of

Final on

2015/02

JAKUB

28/02/2006

28/05/2006

13960/06

A.R. SPOL. S RO.

09/02/2010

09/05/2010

18926/07

BACZOVA

19/10/2010

 

42774/04

BÁŇAS

12/02/2008

12/05/2008

50360/08

BARTL

14/12/2010

 

31651/06

BERECOVA

19/10/2010

 

67149/01

BERKOVA

24/03/2009

24/06/2009

23865/03

BIČ

04/11/2008

04/02/2009

22050/05

BÍRO No. 3

18/05/2010

18/08/2010

26456/06

BÍRO No. 4

18/05/2010

18/08/2010

45109/06

BÍRO No. 5

18/05/2010

18/08/2010

16988/02

BOHUCKÝ

23/10/2007

23/01/2008

21371/06

BOŠKOVÁ

02/06/2009

02/09/2009

9401/07

BRUNOVA

23/11/2010

 

17763/07

BUBLAKOVA

15/02/2011

15/05/2011

35017/03

BUL’KOVÁ

12/05/2009

12/08/2009

65416/01

ČAVAJDA

14/10/2008

14/01/2009

33378/06

ČECHOVA

05/10/2010

 

21806/05

CHRAPKOVÁ

03/11/2009

03/02/2010

65422/01

DOBÁL

12/12/2006

23/05/2007

15592/03

DUDIČOVÁ

08/01/2009

08/04/2009

42561/04

ĎURECH AND OTHERS

07/07/2009

07/10/2009

30754/04

DVORACEK and DVORACKOVA

28/07/2009

28/10/2009

21326/07

ELIÁŠ

18/03/2008

18/06/2008

39202/04

FEKIAČ AND FEKIAČOVÁ

10/11/2009

10/02/2010

19304/04

GAJDOŠ

23/06/2009

23/09/2009

66083/01

GAŽÍKOVÁ

13/06/2006

13/09/2006

17252/04

GERSTBREIN

21/04/2009

21/07/2009

14757/06

GRAUSOVÁ

02/06/2009

02/09/2009

2010/02

HROBOVÁ

08/06/2006

08/09/2006

16933/03

HUDEČKOVÁ

02/06/2009

02/09/2009

49362/06

IVAN

14/12/2010

 

41523/07

J.V. AND OTHERS

23/11/2010

 

16126/05

JAKUBIČKA AND MAGYARICSOVÁ

18/12/2007

18/03/2008

5952/05

JANÍK

27/10/2009

27/01/2010

70798/01

JENČOVÁ

04/05/2006

04/08/2006

70985/01

JUDT

09/10/2007

09/01/2008

44286/06

KANTOROVA

14/12/2010

 

280/06

KASCAK

30/11/2010

 

34602/03

KESZELI

13/10/2009

13/01/2010

34200/06

KESZELI No. 2

21/12/2010

21/03/2011

3673/05

KIŠ

13/10/2009

13/01/2010

21692/06

KOCIANOVA

18/05/2010

04/10/2010

45167/06

KOCIANOVÁ NO. 2

18/05/2010

18/08/2010

72092/01

KOMANICKÝ NO. 3

17/06/2008

17/09/2008

70494/01

KOMANICKÝ NO. 4

22/07/2008

22/10/2008

37046/03

KOMANICKÝ NO. 5

13/10/2009

13/01/2010

56161/00

KOMANICKÝ NO.2

02/10/2007

02/01/2008

25951/06

KOMAR

26/10/2010

 

11051/06

KOSICKÝ AND OTHERS

11/01/2011

 

29749/05

KUČERA

15/12/2009

15/03/2010

63959/00

KURIL

03/10/2006

03/01/2007

67039/01

KVASNOVÁ

13/06/2006

13/09/2006

52443/99

L.R.

29/11/2005

13/09/2006

39783/05

LADOMÉRY

07/04/2009

07/07/2009

77688/01

LUBINA

19/09/2006

19/12/2006

44068/02

MAGURA

13/06/2006

13/09/2006

8799/04

MAJAN

23/11/2010

23/02/2011

21057/06

MAJERÍKOVÁ

24/11/2009

24/02/2010

21076/06

MAJTAS

09/11/2010

 

62187/00

MALEJČÍK

31/01/2006

03/07/2006

30036/06

MARTIKÁN

20/01/2009

20/04/2009

33827/03

MATIA

27/11/2007

27/02/2008

27452/05

MOSAT’

21/09/2010

21/12/2010

21302/02

MÚČKOVÁ

13/06/2006

13/09/2006

1494/05

NOVÁK

02/06/2009

02/09/2009

69484/01

OBLUK

20/06/2006

20/09/2006

67035/01

OREL

09/01/2007

09/04/2007

18968/05

PALDAN

15/12/2009

15/03/2010

9818/02

PALGUTOVÁ

17/05/2005

12/10/2005

11395/06

PETRINCOVÁ

08/12/2009

08/03/2010

18148/05

PINTER

14/12/2010

14/03/2011

45148/06

POBIJAKOVÁ

18/03/2008

18/06/2008

54330/00

PRELOŽNÍK

12/12/2006

23/05/2007

25657/08

RADVAK AND RADVAKOVA

11/01/2011

11/04/2011

25763/02

RAPOŠ

20/05/2008

20/08/2008

58174/00

RIŠKOVÁ

22/08/2006

22/11/2006

36818/06

ROŠKOVÁ

08/12/2009

08/03/2010

51071/06

RUSŇAKOVÁ

14/04/2009

14/07/2009

72019/01

ŠČURYOVÁ

31/10/2006

31/01/2007

72237/01

ŠEDÝ

19/12/2006

19/03/2007

50224/99

ŠIDLOVÁ

26/09/2006

26/12/2006

2132/02

SIKA

13/06/2006

13/09/2006

26840/02

SIKA NO. 3

23/10/2007

23/01/2008

44508/04

SIKA NO. 4

27/11/2007

27/02/2008

284/06

SIKA NO. 5

02/06/2009

02/09/2009

868/05

SIKA NO. 6

10/11/2009

10/02/2010

30633/06

SIROTNAK

21/12/2010

11/04/2011

58708/00

SKURČÁK

05/12/2006

05/03/2007

23865/02

ŠNEGOŇ

12/12/2006

12/03/2007

32427/06

SOFTEL SPOL. S R.O. NO. 1

16/12/2008

16/03/2009

32836/06

SOFTEL SPOL. S R.O. NO. 2

16/12/2008

16/03/2009

77690/01

SOLÁROVÁ AND OTHERS

05/12/2006

05/03/2007

39139/05

ŠPANÍR

18/12/2007

07/07/2008

36528/05

ŠPATKA

15/12/2009

15/03/2010

23846/02

ŠTEFÁNIKOVÁ

23/10/2007

23/01/2008

26077/03

SYKORA

18/01/2011

 

40047/06

SZIGETIOVA

05/10/2010

05/01/2011

77720/01

TERÉNI

20/06/2006

20/09/2006

17709/04

TOMLÁKOVÁ

05/12/2006

05/03/2007

57986/00

TUREK

14/02/2006

13/09/2006

7408/05

URIK

21/12/2010

21/03/2011

3305/04

VIČANOVÁ

18/12/2007

07/07/2008

54826/00

VOZÁR

14/11/2006

14/02/2007

1941/06

VRABEC

30/11/2010

 

67036/01

VUJČÍK

13/12/2005

13/09/2006

28652/03

WEISS

18/12/2007

18/03/2008

42356/05

WOLFF

19/10/2010

 

7908/07

ZAREMBOVA

23/11/2010

23/02/2011

28923/06

ZONGOROVÁ

19/01/2010

19/04/2010

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 each of the judgments listed in the table above;

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 for these cases (see appendix);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)60

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments

in 110 cases against the Slovak Republic

Action report on the judgments of the Court of Human Rights

in 110 cases against the Slovak Republic concerning excessive length of civil proceedings

(the Jakub group)

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings initiated between 1990 and 2000 and closed, in most of the cases, between 1999 and 2004 (violations of Article 6§1). The European Court recalled its case-law according to which certain disputes (labour law, compensation for damage resulting from an accident, parental rights) should be resolved with special diligence (Magura, Teréni, Palgutova, Lubina, Španίr and Kuril cases).

In addition the European Court, when examining the admissibility of the application in the Jakub case, found that the practice followed by the Constitutional Court in the circumstances of that case had rendered ineffective the constitutional complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, introduced in Slovakia in 2002, against the excessive length of judicial proceedings. In 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's request concerning the excessive length of the proceedings he had instituted on the ground that the proceedings were no longer pending before the court responsible for the alleged delays (see also §§45 and 48 of the judgment of the European Court in the Malejčík case and §§ 35 and 46 in the judgment in L.R.).

In the case of Dudičová, the European Court also found a violation of Article 13 in that the Constitutional Court had rejected the applicant’s claim regarding the excessive length of insolvency proceedings as manifestly unfounded, although the proceedings had been pending for five years. The European Court concluded that “the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution, as applied in the present case, cannot be considered effective” (§§82-83).

It further noted that the domestic remedy against the excessive length of proceedings introduced in 2002 had turned out to be ineffective in a number of cases, the Constitutional Court having awarded the applicant's manifestly inadequate compensation (between 5% and 25% of the amounts awarded by the European Court in comparable cases).

In addition the Mučková, Preložník, Šidlová, Komanický No.2 and Berková cases concern the absence of an effective remedy against the excessive length of the same proceedings, in that they were closed respectively before the introduction of the constitutional complaint procedure in 2002 (violations of Article 13). In the Dobál case, the European Court found that there was no effective remedy whereby the applicant might complain about the unreasonable length of proceedings stayed since 1999 (violation of Article 13). On 19/02/2003 the Constitutional Court declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible, as according to its practice, no unjustified delays could exist in proceedings while they were lawfully stayed.

The Mučková case also concerns the unfairness of proceedings in an action brought by the applicant against the state seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from a road accident caused by an official of the Ministry of the Interior (violation of Article 6§1), in which her daughter had been seriously injured. In 1997, the court refused to grant the applicant legal aid on the ground that her action had no chance of success, without advancing any precise justification for this conclusion.

The Turek case also concerns a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his private life due to the unfairness of proceedings in which he unsuccessfully challenged his registration by the former State Security Agency (StB) as one of their “agents” (violation of Article 8). The European Court said that when adopting lustration measures a state must ensure that, in proceedings brought in application of such measures, the persons concerned are protected by all the procedural guarantees provided by the Convention. In the Court's view, the applicant had not benefited from those guarantees inasmuch as the burden of proof was laid upon him to show that he had been registered in breach of the rules applicable at the material time, i.e., the Federal Ministry's guidelines of 1972 - a confidential document to which he had no access. This requirement had imposed an unrealistic burden on the applicant, in breach of the principle of equality of arms.

The Berkova case also concerns a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the fact that domestic courts imposed a three-year prohibition on the applicant from re-applying for restitution of full legal capacity (from 1999 to 2002), after such capacity had been removed in earlier proceedings. The European Court found that the prohibition amounted to a serious interference with the right to respect for the applicant's private life which, although lawful under the legislation in force at the time, did not respond to any pressing social need and was disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society.

The Dvoracek and Dvorackova also case concerns also a violation of the applicant's right to life (violation of Article 2) on account of the judicial proceedings concerning medical negligence leading to the death of the applicants’ daughter having lacked promptness and reasonable expedition.

I. Individual measures

a) Length of proceedings

In 63 of the 77 cases concerned the domestic proceedings at issue were concluded. In the following 15 cases the domestic proceedings are still pending before the national courts: Hrobová, Lubina, Orel, Rišková, Softel No. 1, Softel No. 2, Dudičová, Komanický No. 2, Rapoš, Španίr, Chrapková, Keszeli, Kučera, Majeríková and Sika No. 6.

The proceedings still pending are being monitored by the Slovak authorities a proof of which are the letters of the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic from 3 March 2011 addressed to the respective presidents of the domestic courts in order to request information on the actual state of the proceedings pending before them. The Agent also drew their attention to the Resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe CM/ResDH(2010) 225 on the decisions of the Court in 77 cases against the Slovak Republic concerning the unreasonable length of civil proceedings and requested them to accelerate them so far as possible and to terminate them as soon as possible.

b) Other problems

Violation of Article 6§1 (right to a fair trial) in the Mučková case and violation of Article 8 in the Turek case: The applicants had the possibility to apply to have the unfair proceedings reopened under Article 228§1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that parties may so apply if the European Court has found a violation and if the consequences of such violation are not adequately redressed by the payment of just satisfaction. Applications to reopen must be submitted within three months counting from the date upon which the relevant European Court judgment becomes final.

Concerning the Berkova case, violation of Article 8 of the Convention, as stated at §110 of the judgment, with effect from 1 October 2004, Section 186 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was already amended so that the period during which a person can be prevented from claiming restoration of his or her legal capacity was reduced to a maximum of one year.

The just satisfaction awarded has been paid to the applicants.

No other individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

A) Measures to reduce the length of proceedings (Article 6§1)

1) Organisational measures

The following measures have been adopted by the authorities:

The Government increased the number of judges by 50 during the first quarter of 2008. In 2009 and 2010, the number of judges was increased by more than 10%.

Following the enactment of Law No. 511/2007 amending Law No. 371/2004, nine local courts have been set up and brought into service since 01/01/08.

The Minister of Justice has invited all judges to adopt a proactive and responsible approach to the fulfilment of their judicial obligations, and visits courts unannounced to verify judges’ state of readiness for hearings.

Certain technical changes have been made to the management of the judicial system including creation of new electronic databases and a central database for the judicial system as an efficient means for users to ascertain the existence of parallel proceedings. Judges can also monitor the progress of the cases before the courts and check up on the situation of the prisoners serving their sentences.

The Ministry of Justice is currently working on a Bill for assigning the judicial groundwork to principal auxiliary judges and court registry staff enabling judges to concentrate exclusively on court decisions.

So far as staffing of courts and differences in the capacity of judges is concerned, the Slovak authorities in cooperation with presidents of the courts prepared measures for the balancing of the burdens of the respective courts and judges so that conditions for proceedings without undue delays at all courts be created. In this regard, at the meeting of the minister of justice with the presidents of regional courts and the president of the Specialised criminal court held in January 2011, a new task was assigned to the respective departments of the Ministry of Justice to be fulfilled i.e. to prepare jointly with the presidents of the courts a report considering the effect of cases, comparable courts, number of judges and requirements on the judges.

In March 2011 the Ministry of Justice published on its web site detailed statistics on the number of case filed with and handed in at courts, from which it is apparent that judges are overloaded. The minister also provided data to the presidents of all the courts. This data, as yet unpublished, clearly shows large differences between some courts. Accordingly, the aim of the minister of justice is to effectively, and so far as possible, fairly reallocate judicial and state public employee positions between the respective courts. The published data includes for example, the number of case files with the courts and the extent of their agenda handled by court officers as not all cases are dealt with by judges. The published data also clearly show the number of judges, the number of terminated and un-terminated cases at the respective courts and also, data on the length of proceedings and “unreasonably long proceedings”. The minister of justice took into consideration this data when assigning 19 free positions to judges at five regional courts, determining on assignment 7 judges to the long-time under–staffed Trnava Regional Court, 5 judges to the Bratislava Regional Court and 1 judge to the Banská Bystrica and Prešov Regional Courts. In cases where delays have been found in the proceedings to an evidently large extent, personal consequences have been drawn against the presidents of the courts.

2) Procedural changes

Two legislative amendments have been made in the last few years:

1) A set of amendments adopted as Law No. 273/2007, which came into force on 01/07/07 (“little” amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure), which amended Law No. 99/1963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also amended Law No. 71/1992 on court costs. The “little” amendment was intended to introduce eight changes in civil procedure so as to improve the functioning of the courts. These changes comprise four administrative measures on allocation of powers, procedures for the service of documents, management of case files in courts of appeal and simplification/reduction of court costs.

There have also been four substantive changes in the Code as regards judicial procedure:

- Article 16: harmonisation of the time-limits for challenging judges with those for bringing appeals. Allegations of bias will no longer be examined under a separate procedure but among the principal grounds of appeal;

- Article 214: courts of appeal can rule on a larger number of issues without holding a hearing, in restricted circumstances which include the parties’ consent not to hold a hearing and subject to a verification of the considerations of public interest which arise;

- Articles 250f(3) and 250ja(3): amplification of the class of cases that may be determined without a hearing by administrative courts, when the decision of an administrative authority should manifestly be set aside;

- Article 250t(2): in proceedings brought against the administrative authorities, the public prosecutor may lodge with the court an application to compel the administration concerned to act and to take a decision.

2) An amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure (No. 384/2008), which came into force on 15/10/2008 (“big” amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure) introduced changes including:

- Articles 15 (1) and (2) and 16 (3): harmonisation of the procedure for challenging judges so as to obviate the referral of the case to another judge who might also be concerned by allegations of bias, and enable the court to continue dealing with the case (though without deciding on the merits), on condition that the allegations of bias are ill-founded;

- Article 29a (1) and (2): possibility for courts to appoint joint counsel for several parties to the proceedings in cases with over twenty plaintiffs or respondents, making it possible in particular to expedite proceedings when a party has died and has no known heirs; if a party objects to the appointment of the joint counsel, the dispute in that regard can be disjoined and determined under a separate procedure;

- Articles 38 (1), (2) and (5) and 175cza (7): simplification of the procedure on inheritance which a notary conducts by permission of the court, being able to issue certificates of succession;

- Article 45 (3) to (6): possibility for the parties to proceedings to serve and to be served documents electronically;

- Articles 114 (1) and (3) to (6) and 115a (2): extension of the possibility for the court to determine a case without a hearing, and introduction of a simplified procedure for the settlement of minor litigation; the first amendment provides scope for frustrating dilatory tactics by parties to proceedings failing to make their submissions or to take delivery of their mail (a judgment by default is nevertheless hedged with guarantees of due process: it is delivered publicly and may be set aside at appeal);

- Articles 172 (5) and (6) and 174b (1): extension of the scope of the legal rules governing court orders, so that courts are authorised to issue not only an order to pay but also an injunction to take or refrain from action;

- Article 221 (1) (h): limitation of the possibility for courts of appeal to challenge the decisions delivered at first instance and to refer them back for review; such referral is henceforth possible only where the court of first instance has both wrongly established the facts and misapplied the law;

- Article 243b (1) to (4) and (6): introduction of the principle of review in proceedings before the Court of Cassation, enabling it to rectify certain decisions which are appealed on points of law instead of overturning them and referring them to a court below for review.

3) Publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgments: The judgments of the Court against the Slovak Republic are regularly published in the journal Justičná revue.

4) Effectiveness of the measures adopted

The average length of civil proceedings in the last few years is as follows:

2002 15.18 months

2003 16.56 months

2004 17.56 months

2005 16.86 months

2006 15.40 months

2007 15.06 months

2008 14.07 months

2009 13.00 months

2010 11.77 months

B) Measures for bringing an effective domestic appeal in the event of excessively lengthy civil proceedings (Article 13)

A reform to the Constitution in 2002 introduced a constitutional petition for complaints of violations of human rights protected by international treaties. The European Court has already observed on various occasions that this new procedure represents an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (see in particular the decision on admissibility in the case of Andrášik and others of 22/10/2002).

1) Constitutional Court practice of dismissing appeals where the case is no longer pending before the court responsible for alleged delays

Examples of Constitutional Court judgments in 2003 and 2005 illustrate a development in the practice of this court, which is to have regard to the length of the proceedings before several courts in examining the appeal. The practice of the Constitutional Court which the European Court criticised (see in particular Jakubίčka and Magyaricsová) was followed sporadically during the first five years of operation of the new remedy and was due to the legislative changes. The present tendency of the Constitutional Court is to follow the requirements deriving from the case-law of the European Court.

In addition, the Jakub and Malejčík judgments were circulated to the Constitutional Court. The Malejčík judgment was published in Justičná revue, No. 6-7/2006.

2) Inadequacy of the amounts awarded in compensation by the Constitutional Court

On 07/11/2008, the Agent of the Slovak Republic before the Court organised a seminar in conjunction with the EUROIURIS Centre for European law. The seminar took place in the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the participation of the Constitutional Court’s legal advisers. Emphasis was placed on the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court in cases concerning excessive length of proceedings. Participants’ attention was drawn to the relevant case-law of the European Court and to an analysis of the individual Slovak cases concerned.

On 08/01/2010 twelve examples of decisions delivered by the Constitutional Court between 17 February and 10 September 2009 were submitted, concerning appeals against the length of civil proceedings. Compared to what may be awarded by the Court in this type of case, the amounts awarded by the Constitutional Court are as follows: in five cases they vary from 25% to 42%, in five more from 46% to 74%, and in two they remain above 100%.

3) Constitutional Court practice regarding dismissal of appeals concerning suspended proceedings

On 02/09/2008 the judgment in the Dobál case was transmitted to the Constitutional Court in a circular of the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic. The President of the Constitutional Court was asked to inform all this court’s judges of the decision in order to avert similar violations.

Five examples of decisions (III. ÚS 241/09 of 25 November 2009, III. ÚS 247/2010 of 25 August 2010, III. ÚS 221/2010 of 25 August 2010, II. ÚS 103/06-26 of 24 May 2006, IV. ÚS 177/03 of 25 February 2004) delivered by the Constitutional Court illustrate the changed practice of the Constitutional Court, which is to have regard to the entire length of the proceedings suspended before lodging constitutional complaints on undue delays in the proceedings.

4) Constitutional Court practice to determine the length of proceedings

Four examples of decisions (II. ÚS 12/09 of 3 March 2009, I. ÚS 210/2010 of 1 July 2010, I. ÚS 108/2010 of 9 June 2010, II. ÚS 256/2010 of 1 July 2010) delivered by the Constitutional Court illustrate a development in the practice of this court in cases similar to the Dudičová case, in which the European Court held that the applicant did not have an effective remedy because of the Constitutional Court’s practice of dismissing petition where the length of the proceedings had not been considered great enough to justify the complaint.

5) Ineffectiveness of the Constitutional Court’s orders to courts to expedite proceedings which have incurred significant delays

Among the decisions submitted on 08/01/2010, the Constitutional Court directed the trial courts - in all cases still pending (ten) - to proceed without delay.

In April 2010 a system was established for following up Constitutional Court decisions finding excessive length of proceedings and ordering that they be expedited. Under this programme, the Constitutional Court and several other authorities (Ministries of Justice and the Interior, Supreme Court, State Counsel General, bar association and Mediator) have committed themselves to joint action to eliminate the delays in civil proceedings. The Constitutional Court keeps a register of the cases which disclose excessive length of proceedings and are still pending before the courts. These cases are then closely monitored by the Ministry of Justice and the presiding judges of the courts. Disciplinary penalties may be imposed on judges and lawyers. The Constitutional Court is informed at regular intervals of the state of the proceedings in question.

As to the system of supervision of constitutional decisions from April 2010, on the initiative and conduct of the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic the project named “Effectiveness of the execution of the decisions of the Constitutional court of the Slovak Republic in the proceedings on the complaints by natural persons and legal entities (specific control of constitutionality) in causal link with the principle of presumption of the state’s fault (general courts and law enforcement authorities)” is in place, the aim of which is to implement the execution of decisions of the Constitutional Court more effectively, prevent repeated occurrence of undue delays in civil and criminal proceedings, secure more precise conduct and supervision activity in the general courts in specific cases through coordinated conduct with interested parties, instigate the disciplinary proceedings against judges (prosecutors, investigators) following the fulfilment of the conditions – subjective delays and unprofessionalism, prevention of applying legal responsibility against the Slovak Republic on the ground of violating human rights and fundamental freedoms of applicants.

In 2009 a total of 252 judgments of the Constitutional Court became final where it found a violation of the fundamental right to a hearing without undue delays and within a reasonable time. In 240 cases the applicants were awarded financial satisfaction. From the total number of 252 final judgments concerning 252 proceedings before the general courts 109 were finally terminated. The impact of the above-mentioned project is as follows: after approximately 12 months following the period under evaluation, 43% of monitored cases have been finally terminated.

In the 1st half of 2010 a total of 98 judgments of the Constitutional Court became final where the Constitutional Court found a violation of the fundamental right to a hearing without undue delays and within reasonable time. From the total number of 98 final judgments concerning 98 proceedings before general courts were 21 proceedings finally terminated. The impact of the above-mentioned project is as follows: after approximately 6 months following the period under evaluation, 21% of monitored cases have been finally terminated.

C) Measures concerning other problems identified by the European Court

Concerning the unfairness of proceedings in the Mučková case, on 10/10/2006, the European Court's judgment, together with a circular by the Minister of Justice, was sent out to regional courts, with a request to inform district court judges. The judgment in the Múčková case and published in Justičná Revue No.10/2006.

Concerning the violation of Article 8 in the Turek case, the Lustration Act of 1991, which provided that certain important posts in state institutions could only be held by persons who had not been “agents” of the StB, ceased to have effect in Slovakia on 31/12/1996 (§74 of the European Court's judgment). Concerning the problem of the burden of proof in disputes about the protection of personal integrity, Section 200i of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provided the obligation of the defendant to propose to the court possible evidence supporting the defendant’s allegations, was repealed as of 20/12/1997 following a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 11/11/1997. The judgment has been published in the legal journal Justična Revue, No 6-7/2006. To avoid further similar violations, the Minister of Justice has sent out a circular to the presidents of regional courts requesting them to distribute the judgment to all judges of these courts as well as to the district courts in their jurisdiction.

Concerning the Berkova case, in respect of the violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Government point out that, as stated at §110 of the judgment, with effect from 1 October 2004, Section 186 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been already amended in that the period during which a person can be prevented from claiming restoration of his or her legal capacity was reduced to a maximum of one year. Therefore, there is no need to adopt legislative changes or other measures.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Marica Pirošíková

Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)60106

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

2 cases against Spain

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”)107,

Having regard to the judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

 

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

1

Gomez de Liano y Botella (21369/04)

22/07/2008

22/10/2008

2

Cardona Serrat (38715/06)

26/10/2010

26/01/2011

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 each of the judgments listed in the table above;

Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report for each case provided by the government (see action report, document DH-DD(2012)135F);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicants the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

BILAN D'ACTION108

AFFAIRES : GÔMEZ DE LIAÑO ; CARDONA SERRAT

REQUÊTES Nº : 21369/2004 ; 38715/06

DATES DES ARRÊTS : 22.07.2008 ; 26.10.10

DATE DE MISE À EXÉCUTION DES ARRÊTS : 22.10.2008 ; 26.01.11

A. CIRCONSTANCES DES AFFAIRES

Ces affaires concernent le défaut d'impartialité objective de la juridiction ayant condamné les requérants (violations de l'article 6 § 1):

- en 1999 dans l'affaire Gomez de Liaño y Botella, en raison du fait que les trois juges composant la formation de jugement avaient déjà eu à se prononcer sur l'affaire, notamment en confirmant en appel son inculpation ;

- en 2002 dans l'affaire Cardona Serrat, en ce que deux des trois membres de la chambre de l'Audiencia Provincial qui l'a condamné avaient auparavant fait partie de la chambre du même tribunal ayant décidé sa mise en détention provisoire en employant des termes qui, lus à la lumière de l'article 503 du code de procédure pénale, pouvaient donner à penser au requérant qu'il existait, à leurs yeux, des indices suffisants pour permettre de conclure qu'un délit avait été commis et qu'il était pénalement responsable de ce délit.

B. MESURES INDIVIDUELLES

- Concernant le paiement de la satisfaction équitable,

1. Gómez de Liaño : La Cour EDH a condamné l'Espagne au paiement de 5.000 € au requérant, à titre de dommages moraux. Cette somme a été versée à l'intéressé le 29.10.2008 ;

2. Cardona Serrat : La Cour EDH n’a pas condamné l'Espagne au paiement d’une satisfaction équitable, étant donné qu’aucune demande en ce sens a été formulée par le requérant.

- Mesures de réparation de la violation

- Le recours en révision des arrêts définitifs au pénal – un bref aperçu :

A partir de la doctrine du TC (ATC 245/1991, du 16 décembre), et dans l'attente d'une modification législative permettant la mise en place d'un mécanisme spécifique pour rendre effectifs les arrêts de la Cour EDH, la Chambre des Affaires Pénales du TS peut admettre, dans des cas spécifiques, des recours en révision des arrêts devenues définitives au pénal en raison de l’existence d’un arrêt de la Cour EDH qui constate la violation de la CEDH. Ainsi a été reconnu par la Cour EDH lors de sa décision sur la recevabilité dans l’affaire Prado Bugallo contre l’Espagne (30.03.2010, paragraphe 23).

Le Tribunal Suprême a signalé dans sa décision datée du 29.04.2004, et sur la base de arrêt 245/1991 du TC et de la Recommandation du Comité des Ministres du 19.01.00, que la Chambre des Affaires Pénales « ne peut pas demeurer étrangère à une déclaration contenue dans un arrêt de la Cour EDH » et que « la protection des droits fondamentaux incombe finalement au TC mais qu'il s'agit également d'un devoir pour les Tribunaux ordinaires ». A partir de cette prémisse, le TS signale la possibilité d’élargir, lors de certaines situations et par voie d’une interprétation « pro actione », la liste de supposés du recours de révision en considérant un arrêt de la Cour EDH comme un fait nouveau. Dans la même décision le TS parle non seulement des faits nouveaux qui mettent en évidence l’innocence du condamné mais aussi de ceux qui démontrent une injustice dans l’arrêt de condamnation.

Cela n'implique toutefois pas que tous les arrêts de la Cour EDH puissent être considérés automatiquement comme un argument suffisant pour se pourvoir en révision. Le recours en révision a un caractère extraordinaire et exceptionnel, d'une application restreinte et d'une formalité rigoureuse, accepté uniquement et exclusivement dans les quatre cas établis dans l'article 954.4 LECr. La prise en compte d'un arrêt de la Cour EDH comme fait nouveau susceptible d'être considéré lors d'un recours en révision est fondé tout spécialement sur la nature du droit fondamental violé et dans l'existence ou non de la violation.

- Affaire Gómez de Liaño :

En 2000 le requérant a été gracié de la peine imposée, en 2002 il a été rétabli dans ses droits à exercer une carrière judiciaire (§§35-36) et il se trouve actuellement en situation de congé de convenance personnelle.

Suite à l'obtention de sa remise de peine, le requérant poursuit l'exercice de la profession d'avocat et il est inscrit au Barreau de Madrid. Le requérant se trouve en situation d'occuper à nouveau un poste de la Carrière Judiciaire s'il en fait la demande, aux mêmes conditions de caractère administratif que celles prévues de façon générale pour la réintégration d'un juge ayant exercé la profession d'avocat.

- Affaire Cardona Serrat :

Le requérant a déjà purgé la peine concernée par l’arrêt de la Cour. La voie de redressement interne choisi par le requérant n’a pas été le recours en révision auprès le Tribunal Suprême. Par contre il a introduit le 30 septembre 2011 une requête auprès le Ministère de la Justice afin d’obtenir une indemnisation au titre de la responsabilité patrimoniale de l’État, qui est en cours.

L'Espagne considère qu'il n'y a pas lieu à d'autres types de mesures individuelles.

C. MESURES GÉNÉRALES

- Les arrêts ont été publiés et diffusés le plus largement possible, notamment parmi les juridictions concernées par les arrêts.

- La question soulevée par l'arrêt n'est pas d'ordre général en Espagne. En fait, elle se pose uniquement dans les affaires devant les organes judiciaires qui, en raison du nombre limité de magistrats qui le composent, il peut y avoir coïncidence entre les membres de la Chambre qui tranche un recours en appel contre une décision judiciaire de l'instruction de la procédure pénale et ceux de la Chambre appelée à instruire l'affaire.

Aussi, n'a-t-il pas été considéré comme nécessaire de modifier la disposition légale (§39) qui fait obligation aux Juges et aux Magistrats de s'abstenir d'intervenir dans des affaires auxquelles ils auraient déjà pris part dans une étape antérieure de la procédure, puisque, ainsi que le reconnaît l'arrêt lui-même, il s'agit d'une question qui doit être examinée pour chaque affaire concrètement (§§60-64).

Ce qui semble découler de l’arrêt c’est l’appel à la Cour Suprême à une application plus rigoureuse et au "cas par cas" (en considération des circonstances concrètes de l'affaire) du précepte de la Loi Organique du Pouvoir Judiciaire, à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme.

Ainsi, dans son arrêt du 9 mai 2008 (recours en cassation 10922/2007), postérieur aux faits qui ont donné lieu à l'arrêt de l'affaire, la Cour Suprême a signalé comme suit :

« ...les dispositions légales qui concrétisent et régulent les dites causes soient interprétées et appliquées en conformité avec les critères et les règles qui ont été élaborées au fur et à mesure, pour une meilleure garantie du droit à l'impartialité du juge, par la jurisprudence de la Cour Suprême et de la Cour Constitutionnelle et, tout particulièrement, par celle de la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme. En accord avec cette dernière, il est possible de configurer des situations dans lesquelles l'abstention est obligatoire et la récusation légitime, même si ce n'est pas clairement et expressément contemplé par les normes légales ci-dessus mentionnées. C’est dans cette voie que s'inscrirait l'interprétation flexible donnée au nº. 11º de l'art. 219 LOPJ, par lequel le législateur a cherché à assurer la neutralité objective du juge qui doit décider de l'affaire au pénal et empêcher qu'il ait un contact direct avant l'instruction orale avec la matière objet du procès.

Dans ce sens, la doctrine de la Cour Constitutionnelle a estimé qu'il y a cause d'abstention et de récusation du seul fait que les juges qui doivent trancher une affaire pénale ont déjà eu à trancher préalablement des recours contre des décisions adoptées par le juge d'instruction, telles que les actes d’accusation ou les décisions de mise en arrêt.

(...) Une ligne jurisprudentielle, fondée sur cet aspect particulier, s'est ébauchée au sein de la Cour Constitutionnelle, pour donner naissance à la méthode du "cas par cas" pour déterminer l'interprétation à donner au nº 11 de l'art. 219 LOPJ et la portée du sens de la nécessaire impartialité des juges au pénal. (...) La méthode du « cas par cas » compte aujourd'hui avec l'appui décisif de la jurisprudence de la Cour EDH depuis l'arrêt dans l'affaire Castillo Algar (28 octobre 1998) et Garrido Guerrero (2 mars 2000). »

Plus récemment le Tribunal Suprême a appliqué la jurisprudence de la Cour EDH, avec une mention spécifique à l’affaire Gómez de Liaño, dans l’arrêté de sa Chambre Spéciale du 20.06.2011 qui a débouté le recours de récusation présenté par M. Baltasar Garzón.

L'Espagne considère, par conséquent, qu'il n'y a pas lieu à d'autres mesures générales.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)61109

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Gsell against Switzerland

(Application No. 12675/05, judgment of 8 October 2009, final on 8 January 2010)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant’s right to freedom of expression because he was refused entry to the Davos World Economic Forum in 2001 (violation of Article 10) (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 in the judgment, 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;

Recalling that new issues relating to the aspect of a fair hearing before the Federal Court are examined by the Committee of Ministers within the context of more recent judgments;

      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(2012)61

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Gsell against Switzerland

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns the unjustified interference with the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, a journalist with a good-food magazine, because the prohibition to enter the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2001 had not been prescribed by law (violation of Article 10).

On 27 January 2001, when the applicant was on his way to the WEF, and more specifically to the Public Eye on Davos event being staged by anti-globalisation organisations, the police subjected the passengers of the bus in which he was travelling to an identity check. Despite showing his press card, he was prohibited from entering Davos by the police, who had put in place numerous security measures in view of the announcement of an unauthorised demonstration and of disturbances. The authorities relied on the general police clause enshrined in the Federal Constitution, which could be invoked to deal with “emergency situations” in the absence of other legal means of averting a “clear and present danger”.

While the Court acknowledged the difficulty for the authorities of making a precise assessment of the risks inherent in the WEF, it did not consider that the scale of the demonstrations had been unforeseeable, in view of past experience and the findings of a previous report on security at the WEF. Further, according to the case-law of the Swiss Federal Court, measures to restrict freedom of assembly were to be taken solely in respect of those persons who were creating a disturbance, which had not been the case with the applicant. Consequently, the Court found that, in the absence of a specific legal basis, the authorities had not been entitled to make use of the general police clause in order to prohibit the applicant from entering Davos.

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

1026 EUR

-

7000 EUR

8026 EUR

Paid on 03/03/2010

b) Individual measures

The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of two days' salary and for costs related to a train ticket and meals. As regards non-pecuniary damage, it held that the finding of a violation constitute sufficient just satisfaction in this respect.

In view of the above, no further individual measure was deemed necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

On 28/11/2001, the Cantonal Parliament of Graubünden adopted a new regulation on the cantonal police whose Article 8a filled the legal void existing at the time of the events in question (see § 59 of the judgment). This provision was subsequently replaced by Article 12 of the law on the police of the Canton of Graubünden of 20/10/2004 (in force since 01/07/2005; see §35 of the judgment).

The Swiss authorities indicated that the particular situation from which the case arose at the World Economic Forum 2001 was unique for Switzerland and that they were not aware of similar situations in other cantons or at the federal level where the legal basis for similar measures was missing or held to be insufficient. If, however, a comparable future situation should be brought to the attention of cantonal or federal authorities or courts, it is clear that the case-law of the European Court with regard to the requirement of a legal basis would apply directly.

In addition, the Swiss authorities provided examples in a non-exhaustive way of the relevant legal basis from four other Cantons with large cities (Geneva, Zurich, Berne, Basel).

Lastly, the judgment of the Court was also sent out to the Federal Court and to the authorities directly concerned, and published in the quarterly Report on the jurisprudence of the ECHR 4/2009 in the three official languages.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Switzerland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in the present case.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)62110

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Paşaoğlu against Turkey

(Application No. 8932/03, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008)

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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns unjustified interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life due to the rejection of his request for renewal of his passport (violation of Article 8) (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, 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(2012)62

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Paşaoğlu against Turkey

      Introductory case summary

The case concerns unjustified interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life due to the rejection of his request for renewal of his passport in 1999. The applicant, who resides with his wife and daughter in Greece, was denied renewal on account of a restriction registered in his name by the Ministry of the Interior.

The European Court observed that the measure imposed on the applicant did not stem from criminal proceedings or the execution of a detention order. The restriction in question was based on the applicant's family ties with a certain Georgios Andreadis, who was not permitted entry to Turkey, and by the existence of a “restriction notice” to which the applicant had no access. The Court concluded that to maintain the measure for a long period in the absence of any criminal charge against the applicant was disproportionate and could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 8).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

5000 EUR

267 EUR

5267 EUR

                      Paid on 06/01/2009

b) Individual measures

The restriction notice on the applicant's passport was lifted and there is no restriction on the applicant's entering and leaving the Turkish territory. The applicant is not wanted by the authorities in connection with any offence.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

      II. General measures

The European Court’s judgment was translated into Turkish, published on official website of the Ministry Justice (http://www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr) and sent out to the relevant authorities, namely the Constitutional Court, Court of Cassation, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice. The Turkish authorities considered that the problem revealed by this judgment was an isolated one and that the publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would therefore be sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future.

      III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)63111

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

51 cases against Turkey

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Gökkan and others, application No. 43276/04

12/10/2010

Ozer, application No. 18600/05

12/10/2010

Boran Bulut, application No. 24394/05

29/06/2010

Oguz and others, application No. 29183/05

29/06/2010

Dilipak, application No. 5631/06

08/02/2010

Doğan, application No. 12265/06

01/06/2010

Gurel Turizm ve Sanayii AS, application No. 23530/06

01/06/2010

Iyi, application No. 24072/06

01/06/2010

Cuban, application No. 24587/06

14/09/2010

Akkurt and others, application No. 29731/06

01/06/2010

Yılmaz and others, application No. 34324/06

14/12/2010

Aydin, application No. 25513/07

21/09/2010

Havuc, application No. 27597/07

11/01/2011

Yılmaz and Akmese, application No. 27737/07

07/12/2010

Karatas No. 1 application No. 4372/08

07/12/2010

Arslan, application No. 22893/08

12/04/2011

Kaslıoğlu, application No. 38365/06

01/06/2010

Tarhan, application No. 39861/06

07/12/2010

Camyar, application No. 39896/06

01/06/2010

Sencan, application No. 50880/06

28/09/2010

Kayasu, application No. 4307/07

31/08/2010

Gokce, application No. 13357/07

18/01/2011

Erkan, application No. 15555/07

29/06/2010

Özkulluk and others, application No. 21400/07

14/09/2010

Kar, application No. 21412/07

01/06/2010

Cekic, application No. 35276/08

12/04/2011

Akinci Cekic, application No. 35277/08

12/04/2011

Cekic, application No. 35841/08

12/04/2011

Cekic, application No. 36566/08

12/04/2011

Ozdemir, application No. 48053/08

04/01/2011

Corlak, application No. 53699/08

12/04/2011

Yasa, application No. 1910/09

22/02/2011

Karadeniz Gozetim ve labaratuar Hizmetleri LTD. Sti., application No. 3618/09

07/12/2010

Sayar, application No. 5811/09

14/12/2010

Muftuoglu, application No. 8650/09

22/02/2011

Guner, application No. 8675/09

22/02/2011

Aksu, application No. 8680/09

22/02/2011

Is, application No. 8684/09

22/02/2011

Oktar, application No. 8691/09

22/02/2011

Tınarlıoğlu, application No. 8833/09

22/02/2011

Babuna, application No. 8837/09

22/02/2011

Abo, application No. 10738/09

14/12/2010

Aylikci, application No. 14127/09

07/12/2010

Kesik, application No. 18376/09

12/04/2011

Karsu, application No. 31088/09

07/12/2010

Aksoy, application No. 31104/09

07/12/2010

Gezener, application No. 31170/09

11/01/2011

Alır, application No. 49940/09

14/12/2010

Ekinci, application No. 3872/10

14/12/2010

Yucedag and Uzlan, application No. 12997/10

14/12/2010

Demir, application No. 14645/10

14/12/2010

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the respondent State,

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close their examination.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)64112

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Allen 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”)113,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Allen (18837/06)

30/03/2010

30/06/2010

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(2012)59E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Plan/Action Report and Updates Template

Case of Allen v The United Kingdom (Application no. 18837/06; judgment final on 30 June 2010) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 13 October 2011

Case Summary

1. Case description:

      - The case concerned a violation of the applicant's right to test the lawfulness of her detention before a court, due to the refusal, in October 2005, of a request by her counsel for the applicant to be present at the hearing of an appeal filed by the prosecutor against a previous judicial decision granting her bail.

      - The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5§4.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

      - The just satisfaction award of €1,000 has been paid, as converted to pounds sterling; evidence previously submitted.

3. Other individual measures:

      - The Government considers no further individual measures are required as just satisfaction has been paid. The applicant is no longer held on remand.

General Measures

4. General measures:

- The Government has taken the following general measures:

      - England and Wales

      An amendment has been made to Criminal Procedure Rule 19(17) which governs the right of the defendant to be present at the hearing of a prosecution appeal to the Crown Court against the grant of bail made in a magistrates’ court. The amendment comes into force on 4 October 2010. See paragraph 8 of the document in this link http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/pdf/uksi_20101921_en.pdf

      The amendment to the Rule has been disseminated to court staff in England and Wales through internal guidance

      The amendment to the Rule has been disseminated to Crown Prosecutors in England and Wales through internal guidance

      - Scotland

      The Scottish Government reports that the following measures have been taken:

      · On 24 November 2010, the Lord Justice General passed an Act of Adjournal amending the Criminal Procedure Rules to grant the accused an express right to attend Crown bail appeal hearings. The Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No. 4) (Miscellaneous) 2010 came into force on 13 December 2010.

      · The amendment to the Rules has been disseminated to court staff.

      - Northern Ireland

      In Northern Ireland, the current practice is that defendants are routinely present (often by means of live video link) for the hearing of prosecution appeals against the grant of bail in the High Court. Additionally, a guidance document was issued in June 2010 to all judges with a criminal jurisdiction. That document contains a specific note on the implications of Allen v UK and a link to the full transcript of the judgment. The judgment has also been distributed to prosecutors.

5. Publication:

- The judgment has been publicised in the following locations:

6. Dissemination:

- The Government considers it is unnecessary to disseminate the judgment any further.

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

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)65114

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

M.A.K and R.K 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”)115,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

M.A.K and R.K (45901/05)

23/03/2010

23/06/2010

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(2012)216E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Report

MAK and RK v the United Kingdom (application nos 45901/05 and 40146/06; judgment
final on 23rd March 2010) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on
[date] October 2010

Case Summary

1. Case description:

      - The case concerned the medical treatment of a child (the applicant together with her father) in March 1998 in a public hospital, in particular conducting tests on the second applicant without parental consent, the prevention without a legal basis of the first applicant from visiting his daughter due to suspicion of sexual abuse and failure to consult a dermatologist with due urgency to obtain an opinion regarding marks on the second applicant's skin. The European Court found that the family separation which arose from the prevention of visiting rights whilst the second applicant was hospitalised amounted to an interference with the applicants' right to respect for family life.

      - The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 in relation to both applicants and Article 13 in relation to the first applicant only.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously submitted.

3. Other individual measures:

      - The Government considers no further individual measures are required, beyond the payment of just satisfaction, because the case was about the individual application of a policy on one occasion. The first applicant was subsequently no longer prevented from visiting the second applicant and so there was no on-going breach

General Measures

4. Publication:

      - The case has been reported by a range of publishers of law reports in hard copy and online.

      - It is accessible within the UK, for free, on www.bailii.org as well as on the website of the Court.

5. Dissemination:

      - Article 13 infringement: The Government considers it is unnecessary to take further steps to disseminate the judgment because the events at question in these cases predate the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998: claims in relation to events of a similar nature which occurred after 1 October 2000 can be brought in the UK under this Act.

      - Visiting Restrictions: statutory guidance to local authorities and others, set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children, was revised and issued in 2006 and 2010; revised Volume I of The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations on Court Orders was revised and reissued in 2008. In the later guidance, paragraph 4.53 in the chapter on the Protection of Children, sets out clearly that where a Court makes an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) it may give additional directions as to the contact the child may have with certain persons and may be allowed to have with others. In circumstances such as those that arose in RK and MAK, the appropriate route for the local authority to take would be to apply for an EPO and to seek directions about the nature of contact between the child and his/her parents, rather than setting up informal arrangements to prevent or restrict contact. Both of the publications above give guidance on EPOs.

      - Tests conducted without consent: The General Medical Council (GMC), the independent regulator for doctors, has issued a range of guidance setting out what is expected of doctors registered to practise in the United Kingdom, including 0 - 18 years:

      guidance for all doctors (http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/children_guidance_index.asp)

      and specifically on consent

      (http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_index)

      and on making visual and audio recordings

      (http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/making_audiovisual.asp)

      The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) Child Protection Companion (http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/doc.aspx?id_Resource=1533) provides additional detail.

      The Department of Health issued an updated Reference guide to consent for examination

      or treatment in 2009

      (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_103643) which provides a guide to the legal framework and cross-refers to the GMC guidance.

6. Other general measures:

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

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)66116

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

A.D and O.D 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”)117,

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

A.D and O.D (28680/06)

16/03/2010

16/06/2010

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(2012)218E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Report

AD and OD v the United Kingdom (application no. 28680/06; judgment final on 16/03/2010)
Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 2 November 2011

Case Summary

1. Case description:

      - The case concerns the violation of the right of the applicants (a mother and son) to respect for their family and private life (violation of Article 8) on account of their treatment by local authority social services, in that:

      - they were relocated to a family assessment centre without the correct assessment being carried out during their stay at the centre;

      - the second applicant was placed in foster care due to the lack of a correct assessment; and

      - there was an unreasonable delay in returning the second applicant to his family once the correct assessment had been made

      (The care proceedings commenced in 1997 and the subsequent negligence proceedings against the local authority concluded in 2003.)

      - The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 in relation to both applicants and Article 13 combined with Article 8 in relation to the first applicant only.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously submitted.

3. Individual measures:

      - The Government considers no further individual measures are required beyond the payment of just satisfaction because the case concerned the decisions of professionals made on the particular facts of the case and information available to them at the time. The Children Act 1989 and guidance requires the local authority to take action if they suspect that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The second applicant was subsequently returned to his family and so there was no on-going breach. As noted below statutory guidance in relation to child protection and care planning has been recently revised.

General Measures

4. General measures – Article 8:

      - The Government has taken the following general measures:

      - There are a number of publications that deal with the issues highlighted in this case. Revised statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ was issued in both 2006 and 2010. Chapter 5 of the guidance (managing individual cases) provides advice on what should happen if somebody has concerns about the welfare of a child and in particular, has concerns that a child may be suffering, or is at risk of suffering harm. It sets out the assessment processes to be followed when there are such concerns and emphasises the importance of evidence based decisions being taken by the local authority to safeguard and promote a child’s welfare.

      The publication can be viewed at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00305-2010

      - Chapter 3 (care and supervision orders) of the revised Volume I of The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations on Court Orders revised and published in 2008 sets out the process which should be followed before and after care proceedings under section 31 of that Act. Paragraphs 3.49 – 3.52 focus on the power of the Court to give any directions it considers appropriate about medical or psychiatric examination or other necessary assessment of a child when an interim order is made. The purpose of these assessments is to provide the court with the information required to make its decisions.

      The publication can be viewed at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-10500-2008

      - Since 2002 residential family centres (defined in section 4(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 as establishments which provides accommodation for children and their parents at which the parents' capacity to respond to the children's needs and to safeguard their welfare is monitored or assessed and at which the parents are given such advice, guidance or counselling as is considered necessary) must be registered and inspected under the provisions of that Act.

5. General Measures – Article 13

      The Government considers it is unnecessary to take further steps to disseminate the judgment because the events in question in these cases pre-date the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998: claims in relation to events of a similar nature which occurred after 1 October 2000 can be brought in the UK under this Act

6. Publication & Dissemination:

7. State of execution of judgment:

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

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)67118

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”)119,

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(2012)217E);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised 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

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)68120

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi 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”),

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

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi (61498/08)

2/03/2010

4/10/2010

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 similar violations;

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

Recalling that urgent individual measures were rapidly adopted; in particular, the Committee welcomed the fact that the United Kingdom authorities had sought assurances that the death penalty would not be applied from the Prime Minister of Iraq, the President of Iraq and the President of the Iraqi High Tribunal;

Recalling further that the Committee could note with satisfaction that, following the United Kingdom’s indication that it would need credible assurances before it could examine any request for mutual legal assistance from the Iraqi High Tribunal, the applicants were acquitted for lack of evidence and the acquittal was upheld on appeal; that they were released from custody on 4 July 2011 and 9 August 2011 respectively; and that the United Kingdom authorities confirmed to the Committee that they consider the applicants are no longer at risk of the death penalty;

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 which sets out in detail the measures taken (see appendix);

Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

      DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

      DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)68

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the case of

Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi against the United Kingdom

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report

Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi against the United Kingdom (application No. 61498/08)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 11 October 2011

Factual and Legal Context

1. Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi were arrested in Iraq by UK forces in 2003 and initially detained as security internees. They were subsequently suspected of participating in the killing of two UK soldiers. The Iraqi authorities issued arrest warrants for both individuals in 2006. They remained in a UK detention facility until 31 December 2008, the date of termination of British powers to detain individuals in Iraq, when they were transferred to the Iraqi authorities. The transfer took place despite a rule 39 indication from the European Court issued on 30 December 2008, that they should not be transferred on the basis that their transfer would expose them to the risk of the death penalty. The rule 39 indication was made after the Court of Appeal, on 30 December, dismissed the applicants’ appeal against transfer, refused them permission to appeal to the House of Lords, and refused to grant them interim relief pending either an application to the House of Lords for permission to appeal and for interim relief, or to the European Court for interim measures. The Court found that the applicants were unable to appeal to the House of Lords before their transfer because they had been informed that it was closed over the Christmas and New Year period. The applicants’ subsequent application to appeal to the House of Lords after their transfer (lodged on 6 February 2009) was refused by the House of Lords on 16 February 2009 as it judged that the case did not raise a point of law of general public importance such as to warrant a further appeal.

2. On 2 March 2010, the European Court concluded in its judgment that the transfer exposed the applicants to the risk of the death penalty should they be convicted of charges which attracted the death penalty. The Court found violations of Articles 3, 13, & 34. Under Article 46 of the Convention, the European Court Stated that "compliance with their obligations under Article 3 of the Convention requires the Government to seek to put an end to the applicants' suffering as soon as possible, by taking all possible steps to obtain an assurance from the Iraqi authorities that they will not be subjected to the death penalty" (§171).

Individual Measures

Just satisfaction:

3. Just satisfaction award paid; evidence supplied.

Other individual measures:

4. Al Saadoon and Mufdhi were released from custody by the Iraqi authorities on 4 July 2011 and 9 August 2011 respectively. This followed the Cassation Court’s ratification of the decision made by the Iraqi High Tribunal (“IHT”) to acquit the applicants on the basis that there was insufficient evidence against them in relation to the charges that they faced. The UK is not aware of any outstanding charges against either applicant. The UK concludes that, in the circumstances, the applicants are no longer at real risk of the death penalty. Prior to their release, the UK was always mindful of its obligations arising out of paragraph 171 of the Court’s judgment and took all possible steps to obtain an assurance from the Iraqi authorities that the applicants would not be subjected to the death penalty. UK actions included writing to the President of Iraq, the Prime Minister of Iraq, and President of the (“IHT”).

General Measures

5. This unusual case arose because on 31 December 2008 UK Armed Forces ceased to have the power to detain individuals in Iraq as a matter of international law and so transferred the applicants to the Iraqi authorities. When negotiating arrangements relating to UK detainee transfers on military operations for the purpose of prosecution, assurances regarding the non-application of the death penalty will always be sought from those nations that retain the death penalty. Similarly, in this case the UK declined to further consider requests for legal assistance from the Iraqi High Tribunal in the absence of categorical assurances relating to the death penalty.

6. The Government would further wish to note that it has always made great efforts to comply with interim measures indicated by the Court under rule 39, including in situations where such indications have been communicated at very short notice. The Government attach great importance to its long history of co-operation with the Court in respect of rule 39 indications and has a robust administrative system in place to ensure that interim measures are communicated promptly and precisely to the relevant authorities. The Government take such indications from the Court very seriously and continue to do so. The rule 39 indication in this case presented the UK Government with an unprecedented situation and it acknowledges that in this case it exceptionally failed to take steps to comply.

7. In relation to the violation of Article 13, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has come into operation since the time of the original legal action of this case. The Supreme Court Rules (Statutory Instrument 2009 No. 1603 (L. 17)) allow for urgent applications to be made in person; the expedition of proceedings; and that either the Court below (which refused the application) or the Registrar of the Supreme Court may stay the execution of an order pending the determination of the case. At times when the Registry is closed, the Registrar can for urgent business be contacted by telephone (Supreme Court Practice Direction 2, previously supplied).

8. Publication and dissemination

The judgment has been published and is in the public domain. For example, the judgment is available in the following locations:

- (2009) 49 European Human Rights Reports, SE11;

- (2010) 51 European Human Rights Reports, 9;

- The Times, March 10, 2010;

- LexisNexis – published the report from The Times

Case citations:

- European Human Rights Law Reports, 2010, (4), 424-428;

- Public Law, 2010, July, 621-622;

- Human Rights Law Review, 2010, 10(4), 689-714;

- Journal of International Law, 2009, 1(3), 459-518;

- International Comparative Law Quarterly, 2009, 58(3), 689-702;

- Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2009, 7(5), 1133-1147.

Conclusion

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

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

3 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

4 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

5 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

6 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

7 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

8 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

9 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

10 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

11 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

12 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

13 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

14 Voyez à titre illustratif, Cour appel Mons, arrêts du 13 mai 2008 et 28 juin 2006 ; Cour appel Bruxelles, arrêts du 11 mars 2009, 19 juin 2008, 2 avril 2008, 30 octobre 2007, 15 avril 2005 et 9 novembre 2004 ; Cour appel Gand, arrêts du 10 novembre 2005 et 9 et 16 octobre 2008 ; Trib. Corr. Brugge, jugements du 15 et 16 octobre 2008 ; Trib. Corr. Dendermonde, jugement du 14 novembre 2005 ; Trib. Corr. Ypres, jugement du 9 octobre 2008 ; Cour appel Liège, arrêts du 30 mars 2006, 26 mars 2007, 17 avril 2007, 18 décembre 2007 et 24 juin 2008 ; Cour appel Anvers, arrêts du 10, 18 et 25 septembre 2008, 20, 26 et 30 juin 2008, 28 mai 2008, 7 novembre 2007 et 16 février 2006.

15 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

16 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

17 Projet de loi portant assentiment à la Convention sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants faite à La Haye le 25 octobre 1980, abrogeant les articles 2 et 3 de la loi du 1er août 1985 portant approbation de la Convention européenne sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière de garde des enfants et le rétablissement de la garde des enfants faite à Luxembourg le 20 mai 1980 et modifiant le Code judicaire, Sénat de Belgique, Session de 1997-1998, Doc. n°1-952.

18 Article 3 de la Convention de la Haye de 1980 sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfant.

19 Article 12 alinéa 2 et article 13 de la Convention de la Haye de 1980 susmentionnée

20 Projet de loi du 16 mars 2007 « visant à assurer la mise en œuvre du Règlement (CE) n°2201/2003 du Conseil du 27 novembre 2003 relatif à la compétence, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière matrimoniale et en matière de responsabilité parentale abrogeant le Règlement (CE) n°1347/2000, de la Convention européenne de Luxembourg du 20 mai 1980 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière de garde des enfants et le rétablissement de la garde des enfants ainsi que de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants », Chambre des représentants, 2006-2007, Doc 51 3002/001.

21 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

22 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

23 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

24 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

25 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

26 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

27 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

28 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

29 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

30 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

31 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

32 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

33 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

34 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

35 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

36 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

37 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

38 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

39 Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable fait l’objet d’un document séparé.

40 Voir les résolutions finales nos CM/ResDH(2011)9 et ResDH(2007)119.

41 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

42 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

43 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

44 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

45 Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable fait l’objet d’un document séparé.

46 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

47 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

48 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

49 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

50 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

51 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

52 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

53 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

54 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

55 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

56 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

57 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

58 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

59 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

60 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

61 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

62 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

63 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

64 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

65 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

66 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

67 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

68 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

69 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

70 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

71 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

72 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

73 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

74 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

75 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

76 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

77 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

78 Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 14 October 2011

79 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

80 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

81 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

82 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

83 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

84 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

85 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

86 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

87 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

88 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

89 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

90 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

91 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

92 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

93 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

94 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

95 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

96 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

97 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

98 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

99 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

100 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

101 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

102 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

103 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

104 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

105 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

106 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

107 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

108 Cette traduction n’a pas été réalisée par un traducteur assermenté.

109 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

110 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

111 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

112 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

113 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 states on the improvement of domestic remedies.

114 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

115 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

116 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

117 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

118 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

119 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 States on the improvement of domestic remedies.

120 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents