Ministers’ Deputies

Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2012)1150     28 September 2012



1150th meeting (DH), 24-26 September 2012

Decisions adopted

Volume of Resolutions



CONTENTS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)109 Mair against Austria 3
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)110 Zeman against Austria 4
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)111 Poncelet against Belgium 6
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)112 Taxquet against Belgium 10
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)113 Vandaele and van Acker against Belgium 14
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)114 Two cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina 15
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)115 12 cases against Croatia 16
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)116 GN Ellinas Imports Limited against Cyprus 17
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)117 Osman against Denmark 18
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)118 Gouttard against France 21
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)119 Katritsch against France 23
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)120 Staszkow against France 25
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)121 Vellutini and Michel against France 27
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)122 Baucher against France 29
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)123 Girard against France 31
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)124 Ligue du monde islamique and Organisation islamique mondiale
du secours islamique against France
33

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)125 Pandjikidze and Gorgiladze against Georgia 35
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)126 Hellig against Germany 38
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)127 Cēsnieks against Latvia 41
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)128 Guill against Luxembourg 42
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)129 Lalmahomed against Netherlands 45
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)130 Van Velden against Netherlands 47
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)131 S.T.S. against Netherlands 50
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)132 Reigado Ramos against Portugal 53
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)133 2 cases (Diana Karoussiotis; Michael Dore) against Portugal 56
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)134 Malysh and two other cases against the Russian Federation 59
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)135 Gattei against San Marino 62
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)136 46 cases against Serbia 63
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)137 54 cases against Slovak Republic 65
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)138 five cases against Slovenia 67
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)139 2 cases (Emre; Emre No. 2) against Switzerland 68
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)140 Khelili against Switzerland 71
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)141 37 cases against « the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia » 73
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)142 Mürsel Eren against Turkey 74
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)143 56 cases against Turkey 76
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)144 Kay and others against the United Kingdom 78
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)145 McCann against the United Kingdom 81

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1091
Mair against Austria

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 2029/06, decision of 13/12/2011)

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 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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1102
Zeman against Austria

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 23960/02, judgment of 29/06/2006, final on 29/09/2006;

Judgment on just satisfaction of 10/01/2008, final on 10/04/2008)

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

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the discriminatory treatment of the applicant in connection with his pension (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 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, 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)110

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments

in the case of Zeman against Austria

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the discriminatory treatment of the applicant as a result of the application of the amended Pension and Pension Allowance Act. According to the provisions of this Act, widowers were entitled to receive 40% of the pension their deceased wife had acquired before January 1995 while widows were entitled to 60% of the pension of their deceased husband. The Court held that this distinction was not objectively justified under the Act (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

Following the Court’s principal judgment of 29/06/2006, the Austrian authorities and the applicant reached a friendly settlement covering all the applicant's claims in respect of his widower pension, which was confirmed by the Court in its judgment on Article 41, delivered on 10/02/2008. The Austrian authorities submitted confirmation that the amounts due have been paid to the applicant, as follows: Since January 2007 the applicant has been receiving a widower’s pension in the amount of 60% of the pension which his wife would have received. These payments are being transmitted in advance on the first day of each month. The amount for the pension due since 1 January 1995 was paid to the applicant in January 2007 (payments for the period between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2005 in the amount of 51 700,96 Euro were referred to as “Pensionsrückzahlung Vorjahr“; payments regarding the period between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2009 were referred to as „Nachzahlung“, „Versorgungsgenuss“, „Versorgungsgenusszulage“, etc.). Interest and procedural costs in the amount of 19 858,21 Euro were transmitted for technical reasons together with the regular pension payments for the applicant in January 2007.

II. General measures

The Austrian authorities informed that the present case was a solitary incident due to the transitional arrangements of the Pension and Pension Allowance Act. No further complaints have been received by the relevant authorities for 17 years now. If such complaints were to occur, the Austrian authorities undertake to apply the relevant transitional provisions in line with the Court’s judgment in the present case.

The judgment was published in ÖJZ 2007, p. 210 and Newsletter Menschenrechte 06/3/15, available online at http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/06_3/06_3_15. It was disseminated to the Federal Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt/Verfassungsdienst) and the city of Vienna (Magistratdirektion Geschäftsbereich Recht; Berufungssenat der Stadt Wien) on 23/01/2009. A regular circular note of 11/11/ 2006 was sent to the Parliament, the Federal Ministries, the Governments of the Länder, the Liaison Office of Länder with Federal authorities, the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court and also published on the website of the Federal Chancellery under http://www.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=18848.

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 Austria has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1113
Poncelet against Belgium

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 44418/07, judgment of 30 March 2010, final on 4 October 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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)497F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)497F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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

Poncelet c. Belgique

(Requête n°44418/07, arrêt du 30 mars 2010, définitif le 4 octobre 2010)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

L’arrêt concerne le respect de la présomption d’innocence dans le cadre de la conduite d’une enquête de police et de la procédure pénale qui s’en suit.

Dans la présente affaire, le requérant, haut fonctionnaire, avait fait l’objet d’une enquête diligentée par l’ancien Comité supérieur de contrôle qui avait rapidement donné lieu à une procédure pénale. Dans le cadre de son enquête, l’inspecteur principal avait usé de propos, dans les procès-verbaux, faisant penser que le requérant était coupable. Son avocat avait dénoncé, à plusieurs reprises, cette attitude devant les juridictions compétentes dans le cadre de la procédure pénale à charge du requérant :

- la Chambre du conseil considéra l’action publique éteinte, notamment en raison de la violation de la présomption d’innocence du requérant ;

- la Chambre des mises en accusation réforma cette décision, en considérant que la présomption d’innocence des inculpés était garantie par l’impartialité avec laquelle le juge examinait la valeur probante des éléments, même orientés, recueillis par la police ou le ministère public ;

- la Cour de cassation confirma l’arrêt de la Chambre des mises en accusation ;

- le tribunal correctionnel considéra que le procès du requérant n’était pas équitable, en raison des a priori de l’enquêteur qui avaient violé gravement ses droits de la défense, et déclara l’irrecevabilité des poursuites ;

- la Cour d’appel réforma ledit jugement, en déclarant recevables les poursuites contre le requérant se fondant sur l'article 235bis§5 du Code d'instruction criminelle (CIC), et conclut que tous les moyens invoqués par le requérant ayant déjà été examinés par la Chambre des mises en accusation dans son arrêt du 15 janvier 2007, le juge du fond ne pouvait plus examiner ces moyens tirés de l'irrecevabilité des poursuites. Toutefois, la Cour conclut à l’extinction de l’action publique pour prescription.

Dans son arrêt, la Cour a constaté, à 4 voix contre 3, une violation de l’article 6§2 de la Convention (atteinte à la présomption d’innocence) en raison d’une part, des propos tenus par des inspecteurs de police dans les procès-verbaux composant le dossier d’instruction et d’autre part, du fait de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel ayant déclaré recevables les poursuites contre le requérant repoussant ainsi le motif d’irrecevabilité invoqué par le requérant pour violation de la présomption d’innocence et déclarant ensuite l’extinction des poursuites pour cause d’extinction de l’action publique. La Cour a dès lors estimé que la Cour d’appel avait laissé planer un doute sur la présomption d’innocence du requérant.

II. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable et mesures individuelles

a) Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a condamné, à 4 voix contre 3, l’Etat belge à payer la somme de 5000 Euros pour dommage moral et la somme de 15000 Euros pour frais et dépens. Cette somme a été versée au requérant en date du 1er décembre 2010.

b) Mesures individuelles

Aucune autre mesure individuelle n’a été considérée nécessaire à l’exécution du présent arrêt. En effet, la procédure pénale à l’égard du requérant s’est éteinte en raison de la prescription de l’action publique. Une réouverture de la procédure ne serait donc ni opportune, ni possible.

III. Mesures générales

Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt a été publié sur le site internet Juridat (www.http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be) de la Cour de cassation. En outre, l’arrêt a été diffusé à la Police, au Collège des procureurs généraux et à la Cour de Cassation et a également fait l’objet d’un article dans l’Inforevue 3/2011 (magazine de la police intégrée).

Autres mesures générales

La violation de la présomption d’innocence du requérant a une double origine. D’une part, le manque de diligence des enquêteurs quant à la présomption d’innocence de la personne visée par une enquête et d’autre part, l’application des règles de procédure afin de déterminer les juridictions compétentes pour examiner les moyens tirés de l’irrecevabilité des poursuites soulevés par les parties.

Quant au respect de la présomption d’innocence par des enquêteurs de police dans le cadre de la conduite d’une enquête.

En l’espèce, l’enquête avait été menée par un inspecteur du Comité supérieur du Contrôle, qui était issu d’un organe extérieur à la police judiciaire.

Depuis lors, les services de police ont été réformés en une police intégrée à deux niveaux (la police locale et la police fédérale). Ceci a notamment eu pour conséquence que tous les inspecteurs de police bénéficient, aujourd’hui, d’une formation de police judiciaire solide et commune, notamment axée sur le respect des droits de l’Homme. A cet égard, il convient de mentionner que l’arrêt Poncelet a été intégré dans les modules de formation à destination des membres de la police.

En outre, le code de déontologie adopté le 10 mai 2006 prévoit en son article 22 que : « Les membres du personnel évitent tout acte ou attitude de nature à ébranler la présomption d'impartialité. Ils doivent proscrire tout arbitraire dans leurs interventions en évitant, notamment, de porter atteinte, dans leur manière d'intervenir ou en raison de l'objet de leur intervention, à l'impartialité que les citoyens sont en droit d'attendre d'eux (Art. 127, alinéa 2 LPI.). Dans les enquêtes, ils font preuve d'objectivité et recueillent les éléments tant à charge qu'à décharge». Cette disposition ne permet dès lors pas les faits qui ont donné lieu au présent arrêt. Il convient par ailleurs de souligner que l’inobservation du Code de déontologie peut entraîner des mesures disciplinaires.

Quant aux règles de procédure déterminant les juridictions compétentes pour examiner les moyens tirés de l’irrecevabilité des poursuites soulevés par les parties.

L’article 235 bis§5 C.I.C. détermine la juridiction compétente pour examiner les motifs d’irrecevabilité soulevés par les parties. Dans la présente affaire, il y a eu une ambigüité sur la compétence de la juridiction de fond pour examiner le motif d’irrecevabilité invoqué par le requérant pour atteinte à la présomption d’innocence qui a joué un rôle déterminant dans le traitement de l’affaire.

Alors que le moyen d’irrecevabilité des poursuites pour atteinte à la présomption d’innocence avait déjà été examiné par les juridictions d’instruction, le tribunal correctionnel, juridiction de fond, a également examiné le moyen en application de l’article 235bis§5 considérant qu’il s’agissait d’un moyen d’ordre public. A l’inverse, la Cour d’appel, faisant une autre lecture de la disposition législative a considéré que le moyen d’irrecevabilité ayant été examiné par les juridictions d’instructions ne pouvait plus l’être au fond et a donc rejeté le moyen d’irrecevabilité sans l’examiner. Il subsistait en effet à l’époque une controverse quant à l’interprétation de cet article.

Cette disposition a, depuis lors, été modifiée dans le cadre de la loi du 21 décembre 2009 sur la réforme de la Cour d’assises de sorte qu’il est dorénavant clair que les moyens d’irrecevabilité tirés de l’ordre public ne peuvent plus être examinées devant le juge de fond, si la chambre des mises en accusation (juridiction d’instruction) a rendu une décision sur celles-ci. Ainsi, les difficultés apparues quant à l’application de l’article 235bis §5 dans la présente affaire ne pourraient plus se présenter.

Article 235bis§5 tel que modifié par la loi du 21 décembre 2009 précitée : Les irrégularités, omissions ou causes de nullités visées à l'article 131, § 1er, ou relatives à l'ordonnance de renvoi, et qui ont été examinées devant la chambre des mises en accusation ne peuvent plus l'être devant le juge du fond, sans préjudice des moyens touchant à l'appréciation de la preuve. Il en va de même pour les causes d'irrecevabilité ou d'extinction de l'action publique, sauf lorsqu'elles ne sont acquises que postérieurement aux débats devant la chambre des mises en accusation. Les dispositions du présent paragraphe ne sont pas applicables à l'égard des parties qui ne sont appelées dans l'instance qu'après le renvoi à la juridiction de jugement, sauf si les pièces sont retirées du dossier conformément à l'article 131, § 2, ou au § 6 du présent article.

IV. Conclusions

Au vu des informations transmises, les autorités belges estiment avoir répondu aux exigences de l’arrêt 44418/07 du 30 mars 2010.

Pour résumer, le montant de la satisfaction équitable a été versée au requérant et aucune mesure individuelle ne s’est avérée nécessaire. L’arrêt a été publié et diffusé aux acteurs concernés. En outre, des dispositions législatives ont été adoptées de sorte que le respect de la présomption d’innocences de personnes suspectes durant une enquête ou une procédure judiciaire à leur encontre a été renforcée.

L’Etat belge demande, par conséquent, la clôture de la présente affaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1124
Taxquet against Belgium

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Application No. 926/05, final judgment of 16 November 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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)496F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)496F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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

Taxquet c. Belgique

(Requête no 926/05, arrêt de Grande Chambre du 16 novembre 2010)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

Le 7 janvier 2004, le requérant fut condamné à vingt ans d’emprisonnement par la cour d’assises pour l’assassinat en juillet 1991, à Liège, d’un Ministre d’Etat et pour tentative d’assassinat de la compagne de ce dernier. Pour rendre son verdict, le jury eut à répondre à 32 questions posées par le président de la Cour d’assises de Liège. Celles-ci étaient identiques pour tous les accusés. Quatre d’entre elles concernaient le requérant. Le jury répondit par l’affirmative aux quatre questions.

Invoquant l’article 6 § 1, le requérant soutenait que son droit à un procès équitable avait été méconnu, en raison du fait que l’arrêt de condamnation était fondé sur un verdict de culpabilité non motivé qui ne pouvait faire l’objet d’un recours devant un organe de pleine juridiction. S’appuyant sur l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 d), il se plaignait, par ailleurs, de n’avoir pu, à aucun moment de la procédure, interroger ou faire interroger le témoin anonyme.

La Cour relève qu’en l’espèce, ni l’acte d’accusation, ni les questions posées au jury ne comportaient des informations suffisantes quant à l’implication du requérant dans la commission des infractions qui lui étaient reprochées. Même combinées avec l’acte d’accusation, les questions posées au jury ne permettaient pas au requérant de savoir quels éléments de preuve et circonstances de fait, parmi tous ceux ayant été discutés durant le procès, avaient finalement conduit les jurés à répondre par l’affirmative aux quatre questions le concernant. Ainsi, le requérant ne pouvait notamment différencier, de façon certaine, l’implication de chacun des coaccusés dans la commission de l’infraction; comprendre quel rôle précis pour le jury il avait joué par rapport à ses coaccusés; comprendre pourquoi la qualification d’assassinat avait été retenue plutôt que celle de meurtre; déterminer quels avaient été les éléments qui avaient permis au jury de conclure que deux des coaccusés avaient eu une participation limitée dans les faits reprochés, entraînant une peine moins lourde; et enfin, appréhender pourquoi la circonstance aggravante de préméditation avait été retenue à son encontre, s’agissant de la tentative de meurtre de la compagne du ministre d’État. Enfin, le système belge ne prévoyait pas la possibilité d’interjeter appel contre un arrêt de Cour d’assises.

En conclusion, la Cour conclut que le requérant n’a pas joui de garanties suffisantes pour lui permettre de comprendre le verdict de condamnation prononcé à son encontre et la procédure a, donc, revêtu un caractère inéquitable contraire à l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention. La Cour juge qu’il n’y a pas lieu de statuer, séparément, sur le grief de violation de l’article 6 §§1 et 3 d) 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

    - 4. 000 Euros 8.173.22 Euros 12 173.22 euros

En vertu de l’article 1543 du Code judiciaire et en l’absence d’opposition du requérant, l’Etat belge, à juste titre, a payé cette somme, le 9 décembre 2010, à l’huissier de justice, Bruno Christiane, opérant en vertu d’une tiers saisie par les parties civiles (le délai de paiement s’explique par le fait que l’arrêt de Grande Chambre n’est intervenu qu’en date du 16 novembre 2010). Il appartenait, en effet, au requérant d’invoquer, dans le cadre d’une procédure en opposition devant le juge des saisies, qu’il pouvait obtenir la réouverture de la procédure d’assises, suite à l’arrêt de la Cour. Néanmoins, l’Etat belge a signalé au requérant qu’il pourrait solliciter, le cas échéant, auprès de lui, le remboursement de la somme de 12.173,22 Euros payée via la saisie-arrêt exécution, si la Cour d’assises de Namur venait à revenir sur la créance des parties civiles à son égard, accordée dans son arrêt du 21 octobre 2004.

b) Mesures individuelles

Le requérant se trouvant dans les conditions de la loi du 1er avril 2007 sur la réouverture de la procédure en matière pénale, il a introduit en mai 2011 une demande de réouverture auprès de la Cour de Cassation. Cette demande a été acceptée et son nouveau procès est en cours. Enfin, le requérant a été remis en liberté conditionnelle le 19 mai 2009 sur décision du Tribunal d’application des peines de Liège.

III. Mesures générales

Les autorités belges rappellent que suite à l’arrêt de Chambre dans cette affaire, la Cour de cassation a réagi promptement par son arrêt n° 2505 (P.09.0547.F) du 10 juin 2009. Celle-ci a jugé ainsi : « Aux termes d'un arrêt du 13 janvier 2009 de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (…), le droit à un procès équitable garanti par l'article 6.1 de la Convention implique, en ce qui concerne la cour d'assises, que la décision rendue sur l'accusation mette en avant les considérations qui ont convaincu le jury de la culpabilité ou de l'innocence de l'accusé et indique les raisons concrètes pour lesquelles il a été répondu positivement ou négativement à chacune des questions. En raison de l'autorité de la chose interprétée qui s'attache actuellement à cet arrêt et de la primauté, sur le droit interne, de la règle de droit international issue d'un traité ratifié par la Belgique, la Cour est contrainte de rejeter l'application des articles 342 et 348 du Code d'instruction criminelle en tant qu'ils consacrent la règle, aujourd'hui condamnée par la Cour européenne, suivant laquelle la déclaration du jury n'est pas motivée ».

Par ailleurs, une fois l’arrêt de Grande Chambre rendu, il a fait l’objet d’une diffusion large. Il a été communiqué au Procureur général de la Cour de Cassation, au Collège des Procureurs généraux et il a été publié sur le site Juridat de la Cour de cassation (www.http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be). Il a aussi fait l’objet de plusieurs publications dans des revues indépendantes. Cet arrêt a également été largement commenté dans tous les médias belges (tant écrits qu’audiovisuels).

Enfin, mais surtout, avec la loi du 21 décembre 2009 relative à la réforme de la Cour d’assises (M.B., 11 janvier 2010, entrée en vigueur le 21 janvier 2010), l'Etat belge a voulu prendre énergiquement des mesures en vue d’éviter des violations semblables à celle en cause dans l'affaire TAXQUET.

De manière générale, le législateur confirme le maintien de la Cour d'assises, tout en prévoyant cependant une réforme et une modernisation de la procédure devant cette juridiction. L'augmentation du nombre d'affaires d'assises et de la complexité des dossiers criminels ainsi que le coût élevé de la procédure devant la Cour d'assises ont amené le législateur à vouloir limiter le nombre d'affaires examinées devant la Cour d'assises, à améliorer l'efficacité de la procédure d'assises et la qualité des arrêts de la Cour d'assises ainsi qu’à améliorer les droits de la défense.

La décision du jury sur la culpabilité doit, dorénavant, être motivée. Jusqu'à présent, seul le degré de la peine devait être motivé, conformément à la loi du 30 juin 2000. Le jury délibère d'abord sur la culpabilité sans la Cour, au moyen des questions mises à sa disposition. Ensuite, les juges professionnels se retirent avec les jurés et le greffier pour une seconde délibération pour rédiger la motivation (articles 322 à 338 du Code d’instruction criminelle).

Plus concrètement, l'audience du procès d'assises se déroule de la manière suivante :

- lecture de l'acte d'accusation par le Procureur général ;

- le cas échéant, lecture de l'acte de défense par l'accusé ou son avocat ;

- interrogatoire de l'accusé par le président de la Cour d'assises ;

- audition des témoins ;

- débats : la parole est donnée successivement à la partie civile ou son conseil, au Procureur général et à l'accusé et son conseil, avec possibilité de réplique (ou de réponse). Le dernier mot est toujours pour l'accusé ou son conseil, après quoi les débats sont clôturés ;

- questions du président de la Cour d'assises (il s'agit des questions auxquelles le jury doit répondre lors de la délibération sur la question de la culpabilité) ;

- instructions du président au jury sur les modalités de délibération ;

- remise du dossier et des pièces du procès au jury ;

- délibération du jury sur la culpabilité (première délibération) ;

- le chef du jury doit transcrire la déclaration du jury, la signer et la remettre au président en présence des membres du jury. Le président et le greffier signent tous les deux la déclaration et la glissent dans une enveloppe qui sera close par le greffier ;

- la Cour et le jury se retirent ensuite pour rédiger la motivation (deuxième délibération) et formulent les principales raisons de leur décision ;

- en cas de parité des voix (6/6), l'accusé est acquitté. Si la culpabilité a été prononcée à la majorité simple (7 membres du jury répondent oui à la question sur la culpabilité pour un fait principal et 5 autres répondent non), la Cour doit se prononcer et l'accusé est acquitté si la majorité de la Cour ne se rallie pas à la position de la majorité du jury ;

- lorsque l'accusé est déclaré coupable, la Cour peut reporter l'affaire à une autre audience de la Cour pour la soumettre à un nouveau jury. Tel est le cas lorsque la Cour estime que le jury s'est trompé concernant les principales raisons, en particulier en ce qui concerne la preuve, le contenu de termes juridiques ou l'application de règles de droit ayant mené à la décision ;

- la Cour et les jurés reviennent dans la salle d'audience et l'enveloppe contenant la déclaration du jury est ouverte et versée au dossier. Il est donné lecture de l'arrêt contenant cette déclaration et la motivation, en présence de l'accusé ;

- lorsque l'accusé a été déclaré non coupable, le président prononce son acquittement. Si l'accusé a été déclaré coupable, il s’ensuit un débat sur la culpabilité ;

- la Cour délibère avec le jury sur la peine à donner (troisième délibération) ;

- la Cour et les jurés reviennent dans la salle d'audience et il est donné lecture de l'arrêt de condamnation prononcé par la Cour et des motifs ayant conduit à la détermination de la peine infligée, en présence de l'accusé ;

- s'il y a une partie civile, les intérêts civils sont réglés le jour même ou par la suite.

IV. Conclusions de l’Etat défendeur

L’Etat belge estime que le requérant a bénéficié de mesures individuelles et précises, lui offrant la possibilité d’une restitutio in integrum. De plus, l’adoption de la loi sur la réforme de la Cour d’assises va empêcher de nouvelles violations semblables. Par conséquent, la Belgique a satisfait à toutes les exigences d’exécution du présent arrêt et demande, dès lors, la clôture de cette affaire.

Bruxelles, le 25 avril 2012

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1135
Vandaele and van Acker against Belgium

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 19443/02, final judgment of 10 August 2006)

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”);

Considering that in this case 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 this case out of its list;

Noting that in this case the Government of the respondent State’s only undertaking was to pay a certain sum (indicated in the friendly settlement) to the applicants;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent State paid this sum under terms which appear to have been accepted by the applicants;

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

      DECIDES to close its examination.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1146
Two cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

JESIC (9336/08)

17/05/2011

MURATSPAHIC and others (41925/06)

07/02/2012

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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1157
12 cases against Croatia

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

BARISIC, application No. 11861/08

13/01/2011

CVETNIC, application No. 50337/09

12/04/2011

FRGACIC, application No. 60268/09

12/04/2011

JUG, application No. 42697/10

24/05/2011

MAKSIMOVIC & others, application No. 24008/07

14/10/2010

MALIC, application No. 51454/08

17/02/2011

MEDIC, application No. 24845/09

17/02/2011

PAPIC, application No. 41489/09

29/03/2011

PETRINA, application No. 30097/10

13/01/2011

PLAZIBAT, application No. 30224/10

17/01/2012

PRODANOVIC, application No. 64676/09

22/02/2011

UJDUROVIC, application No. 4129/10

13/01/2011

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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1168
GN Ellinas Imports Limited against Cyprus

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 37402/08, decision of 16 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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1179
Osman against Denmark

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 38058/09, judgment of 14 June 2011, final on 14 September 2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)465E);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)465E);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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: Osman v. Denmark, Application no. 38058/09

The facts

The applicant was a Somali national who lived in Somalia from her birth in 1987 till 1991 and in Kenya from 1991 to 1995. At the age of 7 the applicant came to Denmark where she resided till the age of 15. She spoke Somali and Danish and went to school in Denmark until August 2002. All her close family members live in Denmark. Her father sent her back to Kenya- allegedly against her will- in 2003, when she was 15, where she took care of her paternal grandmother at the Hagadera refugee camp in north-eastern Kenya for more than two years. In August 2005, aged 17 and therefore still a minor, she applied to be reunited with her mother and sib­ lings in Denmark. This application was rejected since her residence permit had lapsed, because she had been absent from Denmark for more than 12 consecutive months, and there were no special circumstances to support granting a new residence permit. The applicant allegedly re-entered Den­ mark illegally in June 2007.

Convention violation found

In its judgments delivered on 14 June 2011 The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life), because the applicant's interests had not been taken into account in the authorities' refusal to renew her Danish residence permit and a fair balance had not been struck between her interests and the State's interest in controlling immigration.

As reparation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, the Court awarded the Applicant a sum of 15.000 EUR and a further sum of 6.000 EUR as reimbursement for costs and expenses.

Individual measures

The compensation awarded in the sum of 21.000 EUR /156.284,10 DKK was transferred to Ms. Osman's bank account on 26 September 2011. The exchange rate was 100 EUR = 744,21 DKK at the time of transfer. A copy of the relevant accounting entry is annexed.

Following the judgment the Ministry decided to reinstate Ms. Osman's residence permit. Ms. Osman was informed thereof by decision of 28 October 2011.

General measures

A summary in Danish of the judgment was published in the periodical 'EU-ret og Menneskeret' (EU Law and Human Righs Law). It can be found in issue no. 4/2011, page 301.

Furthermore, a summary in Danish of the judgment was published via the link 'juni 2011' (June 2011) at the webpage of the Ministry of Justice: www.jm.dk 10.

The judgment was also disseminated to the relevant Danish authorities including: The Ministry for Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs (Ministry of Integration), The Supreme Court, The High Court of Eastern Denmark and The City Court of Copenhagen.

Immediately following the judgment a memorandum interpreting and explaining the legal consequences of the judgment was produced. This memorandum was made public on 8 July 2011 on the webpage of the Ministry of Integration: www.nyidanmark.dk11.

The memorandum was also sent to the Danish Institute for Human Rights (NHRI) and the Danish Parliament (The Immigration and Integration Affairs Committee).

Following the judgment and production of the memorandum two parliamentary hearings were held on the issue of residence permits for minors following 're-education journeys'.

On the webpage mentioned above, www.nyidanmark.dk, a news bulletin was published on the front page where it was explained that it is possible to have decisions reconsidered where a residence permit has lapsed or where an application for a residence permit has been refused due to a long stay abroad in the framework of a re-education travel. The news bulletin is available in Danish, English, Arabic, Dari, Farsi, French, Mandarin, Somali, Turkish and Urdu. In order to stay on the front page the date of the news bulletin is continuously updated.

It is the position of the Government that the publication and dissemination of the judgment as mentioned above is sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)11812
Gouttard against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 57435/08, judgment of 30 June 2011, final on 30 September 2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)180);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)180);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Gouttard contre France (n°57435/08)

Arrêt du 30 juin 2011 devenu définitif le 30 septembre 2011

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Dans cette affaire, le requérant se plaignait de la durée excessive d’une procédure devant la juridiction administrative. La Cour a estimé qu’au regard des circonstances de la cause, le délai de trois ans et demi pour la procédure devant la Cour d’appel était excessif. Elle en a donc conclu que l’article 6§1 de la Convention avait été violé.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué au requérant une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage moral (3 000 €) et des dépens (5 088 €). Cette satisfaction équitable, d’un montant total de 8 088 €, a été versée au requérant le 27 novembre 2011.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est nécessitée par cet arrêt. Ainsi que l'a relevé l'arrêt, la procédure en cause est terminée. La satisfaction équitable a entièrement réparé le préjudice résultant de l’absence du respect du principe du délai raisonnable de jugement.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

L’arrêt a été diffusé en juillet 2011 par le Centre de recherches et de diffusion juridiques du Conseil d’Etat à destination de l’ensemble des magistrats et greffiers de la juridiction administrative.

Il a également été publié par le biais de Légifrance, base de données destinée au grand public et aux professionnels du droit.

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Le présent arrêt a mis en évidence une appréciation différente des juridictions nationales et de la Cour du délai raisonnable de procédure dans une espèce particulière. Son exécution n’appelle aucune autre mesure générale.

S'agissant de la durée de procédure devant les juridictions administratives, il est renvoyé à la résolution DH(2005)63 du Comité des Ministres.

Dans ces conditions, le gouvernement considère que l’arrêt a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)11913
Katritsch against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Application No. 22575/08, judgment of 4 November 2010, final on 4 February 2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)33F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)33F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Katritsch contre France (n°22575/08)

Arrêt du 4 novembre 2010, devenu définitif le 4 février 2011

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne le droit, pour le requérant, à bénéficier de l’assistance d’un avocat à l’occasion d’une audience devant la Cour d’appel, ainsi que pour la préparation de sa défense.

La Cour a constaté qu’en l’espèce le requérant avait été condamné à un an d’emprisonnement par la Cour d’appel, que ce dernier comparaissait pour la première fois personnellement devant des juges du fond et que ces circonstances ne permettaient pas de justifier le refus de report d’audience opposé au requérant par la cour d’appel, quand bien même ce dernier aurait manqué de diligence. Elle en a conclu que l’article 6§3 b) et c) de la Convention avait été violé.

    I. Mesures de caractère individuel

    1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

Le règlement de la satisfaction équitable d’un montant de 3000 euros est intervenu le 3 mai 2011. Les intérêts moratoires dus ont été versés à la même date.

2. Les autres mesures individuelles éventuelles

Le requérant dispose de la possibilité de saisir la Commission de réexamen des décisions pénales pour faire réexaminer son procès pénal en application des articles 626-1 et suivants du code de procédure pénale. Dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure d’ordre individuel n'apparaît nécessaire.

    II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

L’arrêt a été publié sur le site de l’observatoire du droit européen (novembre-décembre 2010, n° 35). Il a fait par ailleurs l’objet d’un commentaire dans le code de procédure pénale commenté et publié par les éditions Dalloz (édition 2012, p. 2259), ainsi que dans le Journal du droit international (Clunet n° 4, Octobre 2011, chron. 12).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Cet arrêt concerne un cas d’espèce et aucune autre mesure générale n’apparaît nécessaire.

    III. Conclusions de l’Etat défendeur

Le gouvernement considère que toutes les mesures nécessaires en vue de l’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour ont été prises, et que la France a par conséquent rempli ses obligations en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12014
Staszkow against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Application No. 52124/08, judgment of 6 October 2011, final on 6 January 2012)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)686F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)686F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Staszkow contre France (n°52124/08)

Arrêt du 6 octobre 2011 devenu définitif le 6 janvier 2012

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte au droit au procès équitable (article 6§1 de la Convention). La Cour a constaté que le requérant, qui avait obtenu le bénéfice de l’aide juridictionnelle totale, ne s’était vu désigner un avocat que postérieurement au délai légal dans lequel le requérant avait la possibilité de saisir la Cour d’appel désignée comme juridiction de renvoi après cassation. Elle a estimé que l’impossibilité pour le requérant de saisir la Cour d’appel résultait d’une défaillance suivie d’un manque de diligence des autorités nationales. La Cour en a conclu que l’article 6§1 de la Convention avait été violé.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué à la requérante une satisfaction équitable de 6 000 euros titre du dommage moral et d’un montant de 3 805,60 euros au titre des frais et dépens. Le montant total de la satisfaction équitable a été versé au requérant le 4 avril 2012.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Le requérant a été indemnisé du préjudice subi du fait de la violation de l’article 6§1 de la Convention par le paiement de la satisfaction équitable. Par ailleurs, si le requérant estimait avoir subi d’autres dommages, l’article L 141-1 du code de l’organisation judiciaire donne la possibilité de rechercher la responsabilité de l’Etat pour fonctionnement défectueux du service public de la justice, au titre duquel figure l’activité du bureau d’aide juridictionnelle. Le gouvernement estime que le présent arrêt ne nécessite pas d’autre mesure individuelle d’exécution.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

L’arrêt a été diffusé au ministère de la Justice et est disponible par l’intermédiaire du site d’accès au droit grand public «Légifrance». Il a été également publié et commenté dans des revues juridiques (notamment : Procédures 2011, com. 337).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Le Gouvernement estime que ces mesures de diffusion et publication sont de nature à prévenir toute violation semblable de la Convention. Cette décision, qui relève d’un cas d’espèce, ne nécessite pas d’autres mesures générales.

Par conséquent, le Gouvernement considère que l’arrêt a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12115
Vellutini and Michel against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Application No. 32820/09, judgment of 6 October 2011, final on 6 January 2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)681F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)681F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Vellutini et Michel contre France (n°32820/09)

Arrêt du 6 octobre 2011 devenu définitif le 6 janvier 2012

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte au droit d’expression (article 10 de la Convention). Les requérants avaient été condamnés pour avoir diffusé un tract dans lequel ils dénonçaient, en qualité de responsables syndicaux, des faits particulièrement graves attribués au maire d’une commune, sans, selon les juridictions nationales, les étayer par une démonstration appropriée et en les assortissant de qualificatifs déplacés.

La Cour a considéré, dans cette affaire, que les propos tenus s’inscrivaient dans le cadre d’un débat public, qu’ils visaient un homme politique et qu’enfin ils n’étaient pas dépourvus de toute base factuelle. Elle a estimé que l’amende (1 000 euros chacun) et les dommages et intérêts (5 000 euros) mis à la charge des requérants étaient disproportionnés au vu des faits reprochés.

La Cour en a conclu que l’atteinte à la liberté d’expression n’était pas nécessaire dans une société démocratique et, partant, que l’article 10 de la Convention avait été violé.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué une satisfaction équitable de 4 000 euros à chacun des requérants au titre du dommage matériel (couvrant les sommes qu’ils ont effectivement payées au titre des dommages-intérêts et des frais de procédure) et de 6 338,80 euros conjointement au titre des frais et dépens. Ces sommes ont été versées aux requérants les 5 et 6 avril 2012.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Les requérants ont été indemnisés par la satisfaction équitable des préjudices subis dans le cadre de la violation constatée par la Cour de l’article 10 de la Convention.

S’agissant d’éventuelles autres conséquences négatives de la violation, en particulier de l’inscription de la condamnation au casier judiciaire du requérant, les requérants avaient la possibilité de demander le réexamen de la décision nationale incriminée (article 626-1 s du code de procédure pénale). En dehors de cette procédure, il existe deux autres moyens de faire modifier le casier judiciaire du requérant si celui-ci le souhaite. Ces deux moyens sont exposés dans l’annexe à la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2011)57 du Comité des Ministres adoptée le 8 juin 2011.

Le gouvernement estime que le présent arrêt ne nécessite pas d’autres mesures individuelles d’exécution.

II. Mesures de caractère général

L’arrêt a été diffusé au ministère de la Justice et est disponible par l’intermédiaire du site d’accès au droit grand public «Légifrance». Il a été également publié et commenté dans des revues juridiques (notamment : AJDA 2011 p. 2372 ; Recueil Dalloz 2011 p. 2475 ; La Semaine Juridique Administrations et Collectivités territoriales n° 42, 17 Octobre 2011, act. 654 ; La Semaine Juridique Edition Générale n° 4, 23 Janvier 2012, 87 ; Droit pénal n° 4, Avril 2012, chron. 3).

Dans la mesure où l'arrêt met en cause, non pas des textes législatifs, mais des motifs particuliers retenus par les juridictions internes dans un cas d'espèce, les mesures de diffusion et de publication doivent permettre de prévenir toute violation semblable de la Convention. Sur ce point, le gouvernement renvoie également aux développements contenus dans l’annexe à la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2011)57 du Comité des Ministres adoptée le 8 juin 2011.

Par conséquent, le Gouvernement considère que l’arrêt a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12216
Baucher against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Application No. 53640/00, judgment of 24 July 2007, final on 24 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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)632F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, under terms which appear to have been accepted by the applicants (see document DH-DD(2012)632F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Baucher contre France (53640/00)

Arrêt du 24 juillet 2007 devenu définitif le 24 octobre 2007 - Bilan d'action

La requête concerne une violation du droit à un procès équitable (article 6 § 1 et § 3b) dans la mesure où le requérant n'a pas pu avoir connaissance de la motivation de sa condamnation par le tribunal correctionnel en première instance avant l'expiration du délai d'appel de 10 jours à compter du prononce du jugement. Le requérant aurait eu pour seule issue d'interjeter appel à titre conservatoire sans connaitre aucun élément de la motivation retenue par le tribunal ; en l'état du droit à cette époque, cela l'aurait toutefois expose a un risque d'aggravation de sa peine par la Cour d'appel, sans qu'il ait pu au préalable mesurer ses chances de succès.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a octroyé au requérant une somme totale de 4 500 euros dont 1 500 euros au titre du préjudice moral et 3 000 euros au titre des frais et dépens. La somme a été payée le 21 mai 2008.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Dans son arrêt, la Cour a rejeté la demande d'indemnisation au titre du préjudice matériel au motif qu' "elle ne saurait .spéculer sur le résultat auquel la procédure incriminée aurait abouti si celle-ci avait respecté la convention". En application des articles L 626-1 et suivants du code de procédure pénale, le requérant dispose de la possibilité de solliciter le réexamen de sa condamnation à la suite de l'arrêt de la Cour. Le gouvernement considère en conséquence qu'aucune autre mesure individuelle n'est nécessaire.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. La diffusion

L'arrêt a été publié sur le site juridique spécialisé Légifrance et a été commenté dans plusieurs revues spécialisées (D. 2007. Aj. 2305, obs. M. Léna ; AJ pénal 2007. 529, obs. C. Porteron ; JCP 2008. I. 110, n° 5, obs. F. Sudre). L'arrêt a également été transmis à la Cour de cassation afin qu'elle rappelle aux juridictions la nécessité de rendre les minutes du jugement dans les délais prescrits. Dans son rapport annuel 2010 intitulé « le droit de savoir » (p 228), la Cour de cassation revient sur ce point : «La motivation des décisions des juridictions répressives permet au prévenu de savoir pour quelles raisons il a été condamné ou à la personne mise en examen de connaître les raisons de son placement en détention provisoire. Elle permet également d'apprécier l'opportunité d'exercer un recours contre une décision (CEDH, 24 juillet 2007, Baucher c. France, requête n° 53640/00). Le droit de savoir compris comme le droit de connaître le raisonnement ayant conduit au prononcé d'une décision pénale s'adresse tant au mis en cause qu'à la partie civile, au ministère public ou à la société dans son ensemble, la justice étant rendue au nom du peuple français

2. Les autres mesures générales

Comme le note à juste titre la Cour, le code de procédure pénale prévoit expressément à l'article 486 que « après avoir été signée par le président et le greffier, la minute est déposée au greffe du tribunal dans les trois jours au plus tard du prononcé du jugement ». L'état actuel du droit en vigueur permet donc au requérant d'avoir connaissance de la motivation du jugement avant éventuellement de faire appel de la décision, dans un délai de 10 jours. La Cour a cependant constaté qu'en l'espèce, le requérant n'avait pu obtenir le jugement complet avant l'expiration du délai d'appel et que "la seule lecture à l'audience du dispositif du jugement du tribunal correctionnel avant l'expiration du délai d'appel, avait porté atteinte aux droits de la défense du requérant (§49)".

Si à l'époque des faits, la Cour a jugé que l'appel à titre conservatoire ne constituait pas un recours de nature à garantir les droits de la défense, dans la mesure où le requérant s'exposait a une aggravation de la peine (§ 48), le gouvernement souligne que la loi du 15 juin 2000, postérieure aux faits de l'espèce, a modifié l'article 500-1 du code de procédure pénale. Dorénavant, si l'appelant se désiste de son appel principal dans un délai d'un mois, cela entraine la caducité des appels incidents, y compris du ministère public.

L'exécution de cet arrêt n'appelle pas d'autres mesures générales.

Le Gouvernement considère par conséquent que l'arrêt a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12317
Girard against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Application No. 22590/04, judgment of 30 June 2011, final on 30 September 2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)684F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)684F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

GIRARD contre France (n°22590/04)

Arrêt du 30 juin 2011 devenu définitif le 30 septembre 2011

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne la violation de l’article 2 et de l’article 8 de la Convention.

Invoquant en substance l’article 2, les requérants se plaignaient de l’inaction alléguée des autorités après la disparition de leur fille. Invoquant, entre autres, l’article 8, ils se plaignaient également du délai mis par les autorités pour restituer des prélèvements effectués sur le corps de leur fille.

La Cour a estimé que la réaction des autorités françaises de novembre 1998 à juillet 1999 n'était pas adaptée aux circonstances et a conclu à la violation du volet procédural de l’article 2 de la Convention. S’agissant de la restitution des prélèvements, elle a considéré qu’eu égard aux circonstances dramatiques de l’affaire et au souhait des requérants de donner au plus vite une sépulture définitive aux restes de leur fille, les autorités françaises n'avaient pas ménagé un juste équilibre entre le droit des requérants au respect de leur vie privée et familiale et le but légitime visé. Elle a conclu à la violation de l’article 8 de la Convention.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué à chacun des requérants 10 000 euros au titre de la réparation du dommage moral. Cette somme a été réglée à chacun d’entre eux les 27 et 31 octobre 2011.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

L’arrêt de la Cour n’appelle pas d’autres mesures à caractère individuel. Il ressort en effet de l'arrêt que les circonstances de la disparition ont été éclaircies et que les prélèvements ont été restitués.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

L’arrêt a été diffusé au ministère de la Justice, qui l’a lui-même transmis aux Parquets. Il a par ailleurs fait l’objet de commentaires dans des revues juridiques (voir notamment, la semaine juridique du 29 août 2011 ; Recueil Dalloz p.1900).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Le gouvernement estime que la diffusion de l'arrêt constitue la mesure générale adéquate pour éviter la réitération des violations constatées par la Cour sur le terrain des articles 2 et 8 de la convention.

Le gouvernement français considère que l'arrêt en cause a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12418
Ligue du monde islamique and Organisation islamique mondiale du secours islamique against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Applications No. 36497/05 and 37172/05, judgment of 15 January 2009, final on 15 April 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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)830);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)830);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Ligue du monde islamique contre France (n°36497/05)

Organisation islamique mondiale du secours islamique contre France (n° 37172/05)

Arrêt du 15 janvier 2009 devenu définitif le 15 avril 2009

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une violation du droit au procès équitable (violation de l’article 6§1). Les requérantes, qui sont deux organisations non gouvernementales saoudiennes ayant leur siège social en Arabie Saoudite, se plaignaient de s’être vues opposer une irrecevabilité à la plainte en diffamation qu’elles avaient déposée devant les juridictions françaises au motif qu’elles n’avaient pas accompli les formalités exigées de toute association pour ester devant une juridiction française.

La Cour a considéré que, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, l'exigence d'une déclaration préalable imposée à une association qui a son siège à l’étranger et qui, n’exerçant aucune activité en France, n’a pas d’établissement dans ce pays constituait une restriction au droit d’accès à un tribunal. Elle en a conclu que l’article 6§1 de la Convention avait été méconnu.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué aux deux requérantes une satisfaction équitable d’un montant de 5 000 euros au titre des frais et dépens. Le montant principal ainsi que des intérêts moratoires ont été consignés au profit des deux requérantes les 12 avril et 20 août 2011.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Au vu de la violation constatée par la Cour et de la prescription de l’action en diffamation en France (§ 63), les associations ont demandé à la Cour une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage moral. La Cour a estimé que le dommage subi par les requérantes était suffisamment réparé par les constats de violations de l’article 6§1 de la Convention. Dans ces conditions, aucune autre mesure individuelle n'apparaît nécessaire.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

Il convient de noter que les autorités françaises publient systématiquement les arrêts de la Cour européenne et les diffusent aux autorités concernées. Cet arrêt, accompagné d'un commentaire, a été communiqué au ministère de l’intérieur ; il a été notamment diffusé sur le site intranet de la Direction des libertés publiques et des affaires juridiques auquel ont accès l'ensemble des agents de l'administration centrale et des services déconcentrés (préfecture, services de la police nationale). Il a également été publié à l’Observatoire du droit européen de la Cour de cassation (bulletin n° 23). Il a en outre été publié dans de nombreuses revues juridiques (Dalloz 2009 n°6 notamment) et est disponible par l’intermédiaire du site grand public d’accès au droit Légifrance.

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Dans un arrêt du 8 décembre 2009 (n° 09-81.607), la Cour de cassation s'est ralliée à l'analyse de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme en affirmant que « toute personne morale étrangère, qui se prétend victime d'une infraction, est habilitée à se constituer partie civile, devant une juridiction française, dans les conditions prévues par l'article 2 du code de procédure pénale, même si elle n'a pas d'établissement en France, et n'a pas fait de déclaration préalable à la préfecture ».

Par conséquent, en l’état actuel de la jurisprudence, une association étrangère n'ayant ni son siège social, ni un établissement en France, peut désormais ester en justice.

III. Conclusions de l’Etat défendeur

Le gouvernement considère que toutes les mesures nécessaires en vue de l’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour ont été prises, et que la France a par conséquent rempli ses obligations en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12519
Pandjikidze and Gorgiladze against Georgia

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 30323/02 and 4313/04, judgments of 27 October 2009 and 20 October 2009,

final on 27 January 2010 and 20 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 referred to as “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 the violation of the right to a fair trial (violations of Article 6§1) and conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Gorgiladze case which amounted to a violation of Article 3 (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Georgia’s 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, within the time-limit set, the respondent State 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;

Having examined the measures taken by the respondent State to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix;

      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)125

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of Pandjikidze and Gorgiladze against Georgia

I. Introductory case summary

In both cases, the Court found a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention on the grounds that the applicants were tried by a court which was "not established by law". Two of the three judges sitting at the bench of the court that convicted the applicants were not professional judges and the exercise of their functions had no sufficient legal basis in domestic law (violations of Article 6§1).

The Gorgiladze case concerns conditions of the applicant’s detention at Tbilisi prison No. 5 which amounted to a violation of Article 3 (violation of Article 3).

II. 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

Pandjikidze and others

No. 30323/02

 

6000 EUR

 

6 000 EUR

Paid on 07/04/2010

Gorgiladze

No. 4313/04

 

5000 EUR

 

5 000 EUR

Paid on 07/04/2010

b) Individual measures

Violation of Article 6

In the case of Pandjikidze and others, the applicants were convicted of high treason on 8/11/2001 and sentenced to 3 years' or 2 years and 5 months' imprisonment respectively. The applicants were released after having served their sentence. Mr Gorgiladze was sentenced on 21/05/2003 to 18 years' imprisonment for homicide. He is currently serving his sentence (see also below under “Article 3”).

Under Article 41, the Court stated that when, as in the present case, there has been a conviction at first instance by a tribunal not established by law contrary to the requirements of Article 6§1 of the Convention and that there has been no general examination of the case on the merits since, a new trial or reopening of the proceedings on the merits at the applicants' request is in principle an appropriate way to redress the violation found.

The Georgian Parliament adopted Article 310 “e” of the Code of Criminal Procedure in response to the judgments of the Court. On 1/1/2012, a legislative amendment was adopted allowing the entry into force of Article 310 “e” of the CCP on that date. According to this legislative amendment, applicants concerned by judgments of the European Court delivered before 1/1/2012, were allowed to request, before 1 July 2012, reopening of proceedings.

On 23 January 2012, the Government Agent informed Mr Gorgiladze (the only applicant still in prison) of the possibility of introducing an application for re-examination of his case before the Tbilisi Court of Appeal in accordance with Article 310 “e” of the CCP as amended.

However, the applicants have not applied for reopening of proceedings.

Additional amendments were further introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19 April 2012. According to these amendments, a request for reopening following a judgment by the European Court can be introduced within one year after a judgment of the European Court becomes final.

Violation of Article 3 (Gorgiladze case)

When the Court rendered its judgment, the applicant was no longer detained in Tbilisi Prison No. 5 (§17 of the judgment). The authorities indicated that Mr Gorgiladze is currently serving his sentence in Prison No. 17 of Gegouti (West of Georgia) and that the conditions of his detention are in conformity with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant did not make any further complaint before the competent authorities.

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

III. General measures

a) Violation of Article 6

- Measures taken with regard to the right to a fair trail

Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 25/03/2005 abolished the institution of non professional judges (§46 of the Pandjikidze and others judgment; §19 of the Gorgiladze judgment).

- Other measures

Both judgments in these cases were translated into Georgian, published in the Official Journal and sent out to various State instances. The Georgian version of the judgments can be consulted on the Websites of the Ministry of Justice and of the Supreme Court of Georgia. The judgments can also be found on the bulletin Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against Georgia, published in 2010 by the Human Rights Centre of the Supreme Court of Georgia - a compilation of all judgments rendered by the European Court against Georgia between 2004 and 2010 which has been sent out to domestic courts.

b) Violation of Article 3

The authorities indicated that Tbilisi Prison No 5 was demolished end of 2008.

IV. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12620
Hellig against Germany

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 20999/05, judgment of 7 July 2011, final on 7 October 2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)360E);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent state, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)360E);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Application of Hellig v. Federal Republic of Germany (no. 20999/05)

Report on the execution of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

delivered on 7 July 2011 (final since 7 October 2011)

Action Plan / Action Report

1. Violation of the Convention determined by the Court

The case concerned the Application of a prisoner regarding his detainment in a security cell in prison without clothes for seven days. The Court considered the Applicant’s seven-day placement in the security cell in itself to have been justified by the special circumstances of the case. However, the Court concluded that there had been no sufficient reasons to justify such harsh treatment as the removal of the Applicant’s clothes for the entire duration of his placement in the cell.

2. Individual measures

The compensation awarded by the Court, totalling €13,500, was received on 5 January 2012 by the Applicant’s legal representative, who had submitted a power of attorney authorising him to receive the compensation sum awarded. Please find attached a photocopy of the relevant accounting entry.

3. General measures

a) In the Land of Hesse

Immediately after pronouncement, the Court’s Judgment was communicated to all prison authorities of the Land of Hesse – the Land where the violation of the Convention took place. The Prisons Sub-committee of the Parliament of the Land of Hesse (Landtag) was also informed of the Court’s Judgement.

On 12 July 2011, in its initial response to the Judgment, the Ministry of Justice of the Land of Hesse requested – in addition to the two easy-tear, non-woven paper covers already provided, one of which serves as a garment – the general provision by all prisons with immediate effect of a piece of underwear made from non-woven paper.

At the same time, a survey was carried out in the Laender which produced the following conclusion: Most Laender perceived a much lesser danger in the provision of garments to those at risk of suicide than that previously estimated in Hesse. Hamburg, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, Saarland and Thuringia provide normal tracksuits or similar garments, and in some cases even quilts or woollen blankets. Bavaria plans to introduce a rule to stipulate the provision – in addition to a piece of disposable underwear made from non-woven material – of a shirt and a cover, each made of tear-resistant material.

In Baden-Württemberg, aside from underwear made of non-woven material, some prisoners are given shirts made out of tear-proof, non-twistable material. However, such shirts have the disadvantage of being heavy, stiff and therefore very uncomfortable.

In keeping with the intent of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which particular value is to be ascribed to the protection of modesty, Hesse has decided – in addition to a cover and a piece of underwear made of non-woven paper – to provide prisoners with a paper shirt. Schleswig-Holstein has already had positive experience with this. On 17 October 2011, the prisons were therefore requested to follow this procedure.

b) Further general measures

A German translation of the judgment was sent to all the ministries of justice of the Laender for notification within their remit.

In addition to this, a German translation of the judgment was published in anonymous form on the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice in the Ministry’s case-law database (www.bmj.de/egmr). Furthermore, the translation was sent to several important publishing houses that bring out legal periodicals.

Moreover, the judgment will be included in the report drawn up by the Federal Ministry of Justice, entitled Bericht über die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und die Umsetzung seiner Urteile in Verfahren gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Jahr 2011 (“Report on the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and on the Execution of its Judgments in Cases against the Federal Republic of Germany in 2011”). This report is widely disseminated, and will be published on the Federal Ministry of Justice website at www.bmj.de (Recht → Öffentliches Recht → Beauftragte für Menschenrechtsfragen). (www.bmj.de/DE/Recht/OeffentlichesRecht/BeauftragteMenschenrechtsfragen/WichtigeUrteiledesEuropaeischenGerichtshofsfuerMenschenrechte/_node.html)

4. Conclusions

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 Germany has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12721
Cēsnieks against Latvia

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 9278/06, decision of 6 mars 2012)

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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12822
Guill against Luxembourg

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 14356/08, final judgment of 16 February 2012)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)829);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)829);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Affaire GUILL contre Luxembourg (n° 14356/08)

Arrêt définitif du 16/02/2012

BILAN D’ACTION (révisé)

Cette affaire porte sur la durée excessive de la procédure devant le tribunal d’arrondissement siégeant en matière commerciale, causée par la contestation de créances dans le cadre de la clôture d’une faillite. Débutée le 4 novembre 1977, la procédure n’avait toujours pas abouti 30 ans plus tard, au moment du dépôt de la requête (violations de l'article 6§1).

1. Mesures de caractère individuel

    Ø Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

Le 18 avril 2012, le Luxembourg a payé au requérant, via son mandataire Roy Reding, la satisfaction équitable d’un montant de 37 885,25 € dont 30 000 € pour dommage moral et

7 885,25 € pour frais et dépens.

    Ø Autres mesures

La procédure de faillite ayant été clôturée le 18 janvier 2012, il n’existe plus de violation à l’encontre du requérant.

Le Gouvernement considère qu’aucune autre mesure de caractère individuel n’est nécessaire pour mettre fin à la violation constatée.

2. Mesures de caractère général

    Ø Diffusion de l’arrêt

Le 20 février 2012, un résumé de l’arrêt ainsi qu’un lien vers celui-ci ont été publiés sur le site internet du magazine juridique CODEX, http://www.codex-online.com, et sur le site internet du ministère de la Justice. L’arrêt a également été transmis dès le 27 février 2012 au Procureur général d'Etat aux fins d’information de tous les magistrats instances judiciaires concernées.

Le ministère de la Justice a mis en ligne l’arrêt, devenu définitif, sur son site internet

(http://www.mj.public.lu/juridictions/arrets_concernant_le_luxembourg/Affaire_Guill.pdf ).

Parallèlement, un avis attirant l'attention du public sur cette publication a été inséré au journal officiel luxembourgeois (Mémorial B n°72 du 12 septembre 2012).

    Ø Autres mesures

Longueur de la procédure de faillite

Bien que le Gouvernement ait été tenu comme principal responsable de la durée de la procédure de faillite, la Cour européenne a reconnu que « le requérant ne s’est pas montré d’une diligence exemplaire dans cette affaire et qu’il ne peut être considéré comme étant totalement étranger à la longueur de la procédure ». Ainsi, en droit luxembourgeois, un juge-commissaire, désigné par le tribunal, est chargé spécialement d'accélérer et de surveiller les opérations, la gestion et la liquidation de la faillite. Tel que cela a été reconnu par la Cour européenne, le requérant n’a pas fait usage de la faculté qui lui était accordée de saisir le juge-commissaire afin d’accélérer la procédure.

Il convient d’admettre que l’intervention du juge-commissaire n’aurait pas réduit de manière significative la durée de cette procédure exceptionnellement complexe, particulièrement à cause des nombreux débats et contestations sur les créances. Mais il n’a pas non plus lieu d’en déduire une généralisation quant à la durée des procédures de faillite au Luxembourg. Ainsi, la Banque mondiale évalue la durée moyenne d’une liquidation d’entreprise au Luxembourg et du recouvrement des créances par les créanciers à deux années seulement.

Le présent arrêt n’implique donc pas une obligation pour le Luxembourg de modifier sa législation en matière de faillite, les procédures de liquidation étant généralement rapides et efficaces. Dans un cas exceptionnellement long comme celui en cause, un recours interne en matière de durée de procédures existe à présent et a été reconnu comme effectif par la Cour européenne.

Violation de l'article 13 : recours effectif interne en matière de durée de procédure

Les droits et libertés contenus dans la Convention sont justiciables au niveau interne au même titre que les droits et libertés contenus dans la législation nationale. Ainsi, à tout niveau de recours, il est possible d’invoquer la Convention devant les juridictions saisies.

En outre, la loi du 1er septembre 1988 relative à la responsabilité civile de l’Etat et des collectivités publiques prévoit explicitement que « l’Etat et les autres personnes morales de droit public répondent, chacun dans le cadre de ses missions de service public, de tout dommage causé par le fonctionnement défectueux de leurs services, tant administratifs que judiciaires, sous réserve de l’autorité de la chose jugée. Toutefois, lorsqu’il serait inéquitable, eu égard à la nature et à la finalité de l’acte générateur du dommage, de laisser le préjudice subi à charge de l’administré, indemnisation est due même en l’absence de preuve d’un fonctionnement défectueux du service, à condition que le dommage soit spécial et exceptionnel et qu’il ne soit pas imputable à une faute de la victime. »

Ainsi, le droit luxembourgeois permet d'obtenir réparation du préjudice subi par un administré du fait du fonctionnement défectueux de l'administration par le biais d'une action en responsabilité qui peut être intentée, soit sur la base des articles 1382 ss. du code civil luxembourgeois (règles générales), soit sur la base d'une loi spéciale du 1er septembre 1988.

Or, la Cour européenne a retenu que, jusqu’au 1er août 2008, ce recours n’avait pas acquis un degré de certitude juridique suffisant pour pouvoir et devoir être utilisé par les requérants aux fins de l’article 35 §1 de la Convention. La Cour se fondait alors sur l’absence de jurisprudence nationale ayant appliqué cette voie de recours dans le cas d’une violation de la Convention. La requête ayant été introduite par M. Guill en date du 21 février 2008, la Cour a, selon sa jurisprudence constante, rejeté l’exception de non épuisement des voies de recours internes mise en avant par le Gouvernement (voir notamment l’arrêt Rezette, confirmé par la suite par la décision sur la recevabilité dans l’affaire Mertens-Pechackova contre Luxembourg, n° 28369/05, 26 juin 2008).

La Cour européenne a néanmoins opéré un revirement de jurisprudence dans son arrêt Léandro da Silva contre Luxembourg (n°30273/07, 11 février 2010) se fondant sur l'évolution de la jurisprudence nationale en matière d’indemnisation de procédures excessivement longues. En effet, un arrêt du 21 novembre 2007 rendu par la Cour d'appel luxembourgeoise dans l’affaire Farnell Holdings LTD contre l’Etat du Grand Duché de Luxembourg a fait droit à des indemnités en réparation de préjudices nés d'un dépassement du « délai raisonnable » de l'article 6§1 de la Convention et alloue à la demanderesse une indemnité de 15 000 € pour une instance ayant duré plus de cinq ans.

C’est ainsi le 1er août 2008 que l’arrêt Farnell Holdings a, selon la Cour européenne, acquis un degré de certitude juridique suffisant permettant de considérer comme effectif un recours indemnitaire découlant de l’action en responsabilité de l’Etat. En effet, si la Cour rejette dans l’arrêt Guill l’exception de non épuisement des voies de recours internes, elle confirme cependant que, pour la période postérieure au 1er août 2008, le requérant aurait dû épuiser cette voie de recours interne.

Une voie de recours effective interne pour durée excessive des procédures existe donc à présent au Luxembourg.

Le Gouvernement estime qu’aucune autre mesure de caractère général n’est nécessaire pour mettre fin à la violation constatée et exécuter pleinement l’arrêt. La surveillance de l’exécution peut être clôturée.

13/09/2012

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)12923
Lalmahomed against Netherlands

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Application No. 26036/08, judgment of 22/02/2011, final on 22/05/2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)740E);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in the present case (see document DH-DD(2012)740E);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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 the Government of the Netherlands

on the implementation of the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of LALMAHOMED v. the Netherlands

Application no. 26036/08, Judgment of 22 February 2011, Final 22 May 2011

Introduction

On 2 June 2008 Mr Goelzeer Lalmahomed (‘the applicant’) submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) under Article 34 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’).

On 22 February 2011 the Court found there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. In accordance with the standard classification procedure,1 the Government of the Netherlands wishes to present its action report, with a view to closure of the case by the Committee of Ministers.

Case description

Violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial on account of the fact that the single-judge chamber of the Court of Appeal sitting as the President refused him leave to appeal, holding that the grounds for appeal were implausible, without having a full and thorough evaluation of the relevant factors (violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (c)).

Individual measures

The Government of the Netherlands has not taken any additional individual measures following the Court’s judgment since the applicant is no longer suffering any consequences of the violation.

The applicant has the possibility to file an application for a retrial with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of the Netherlands (article 457, paragraph 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering)). According to article 458, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an application for a retrial should be filed with the Supreme Court within three months after the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant has not filed such an application within that time limit.

General measures

The Dutch authorities consider that, given the direct effect of the Court’s judgments in the Netherlands, all authorities concerned are expected to align their practice with the present judgment. To this end, the judgment and commentary on the judgment have been published in several Dutch legal journals, including Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB 2011, no. 858), T. de Roos in European Human Rights Cases (EHRC 2011, 5, p. 878-879), M. de Werd ‘Verlof in 1 As set out in CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 and CM/Inf/DH(2010)37E strafzaken’ in het Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten (NTM 2011, p. 575-583), T. de Roos in Strafblad (2011, p. 7-10) and L. van Lent in Delikt en Delinkwent (2011/50).

Furthermore, by letter of 1 September 2011, the Minister of Security and Justice brought the judgment to the attention of the chair of the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak). In his letter, the Minister pointed out that, in certain cases, a more proactive investigative stance is necessary on the part of the court hearing an application for leave to appeal. The Minister also asked the chair to bring his letter to the attention of the National Consultative Committee of Criminal Law Sector Chairpersons (Landelijk Overleg Voorzitters

Strafsectoren).

Payment of Just satisfaction

The applicant has submitted no claim for just satisfaction.

Conclusion

The Government of the Netherlands believes that the measures taken have fulfilled the requirements that arise from the Court’s judgment and that as a result, similar violations in the future will be prevented.

The Hague, 6 August 2012

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13024
Van Velden against Netherlands

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 30666/08, judgment of 19/07/2011, final on 19/10/2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)741E);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)741E);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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 the Government of the Netherlands

on the implementation of the Court’s judgment

concerning Application no. 30666/08, VAN VELDEN v. the Netherlands,

Judgment of 19 July 2011, Final on 19 January 2012

Introduction

1. On 20 June 2008 Mr Robertus Gemma Maria VAN VELDEN (‘the applicant’) submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) under Article 34 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’).

2. On 19 July 2011 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention. In addition, the Court ordered the Government of the Netherlands (‘the Government’) to pay the applicant €1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

3. With reference to the standard classification procedure25 the Government of the Netherlands wishes to present its action report, with a view to closure of the case by the Committee of Ministers.

Case description

4. Violation of the applicant's right to liberty and security due to the deprivation of access in 2007 (rejection of his appeal as out of time) to a procedure to obtain his release from pre-trial detention which under domestic law ought to have been open to him (Article 5 § 4). The Court found that the domestic courts' rejection of the applicant's appeal as being lodged out of time was based on the wrongful application of domestic law.

Individual measures

5. The Government of the Netherlands is of the opinion that no further individual measures are required, since the applicant is no longer suffering any consequences of the violation. Later on, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment from which the time which he had spent in detention on remand was deducted in its entirety (see § 15 of the judgment).

General measures

6. The violation occurred as a result of an isolated incident. The publication and dissemination of the judgment would be sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future. The Dutch authorities consider that, in view of the direct effect of the Court’s judgments in the Netherlands, all the authorities concerned are expected to align their practice with the present judgment. The judgment and the commentary have been published in several Dutch legal journals, including European Human Rights Cases26 and Nederlands Juristenblad27.

7. Furthermore, the judgment was brought to the attention of the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak) and the National Office (Parket-Generaal) of the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie) by the Ministry of Security and Justice. Both organisations were asked to disseminate the information.

Just satisfaction

8. In its judgment the Court ordered the Government to pay the applicant €1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, within three months of the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Government paid this amount and notified the Department for the Execution of the Judgments of the Court accordingly by emailing it the payment registration form on 1 February 2012.

Conclusion

9. The Government believes that the measures taken fulfil the requirements that arise from the Court’s judgment and that these measures will prevent similar violations in the future.

The Hague, 6 August 2012

Liselot Egmond

Deputy Agent of the Government of the Netherlands

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13128
S.T.S. against Netherlands

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:

(Application No. 277/05, judgment of 07/06/2011, final on 07/09/2011)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)748E);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)748E);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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 the Government of the Netherlands

on the implementation of the judgment of the Court

concerning Application no. 277/05, S.T.S. v. the Netherlands

Judgment of 7 June 2011, Final on 7 September 2011

Introduction

1. On 21 December 2004, Mr S.T.S. (‘the applicant’) submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) under article 34 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’).

2. On 7 June 2011, the Court found a violation of article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention. Under article 41 of the Convention, the Court ordered the Government of the Netherlands (‘the Government’) to pay the applicant €2,000 plus any tax that might be applicable within three months of the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with article 44, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The judgment became final on 7 September 2011.

3. With reference to the standard classification procedure,29 the Government of the Netherlands wishes to present its report, with a view to informing the Secretariat about the measures taken.

Case description

4. Excessive length of the proceedings on the lawfulness of the minor applicant's custodial placement in a confined institution (Article 5 § 4). Lack of effective proceedings on the lawfulness of the detention due to the Supreme Court's failure to decide the case before the expiry of the validity of the placement order and due to the subsequent dismissal of the case for having become devoid of interest (Article 5 § 4).

Publication and dissemination of the judgment

5. The Dutch authorities consider that, given the direct effect of the Court’s judgments in the Netherlands, all the authorities concerned are expected to align their practice with the present judgment. To this end, the judgment and commentary on the judgment have been published in several Dutch legal journals, including European Human Rights Cases30, Nederlands Juristenblad31 and Rechtspraak Familierecht.32

6. Furthermore, the Ministry of Security and Justice informed the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) about the judgment on the day it was delivered and also brought it to the attention of the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak).

Individual measures

7. The Government will not take any individual measures following the Court’s judgment, other than the payment of just satisfaction (see below), since no consequences of the violation for the applicant persist.

8. The applicant was released from the secure institution in mid-2006, when he came of age.

General measures

9. Very shortly after the Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands reversed its settled case law concerning ‘no interest’. Referring to the Court’s judgment in this case, the Supreme Court held:

10. ‘It must be assumed that anyone who seeks a remedy against a temporary order that has deprived him of his liberty should not have his interest in bringing an action denied solely because the period for which that order applied has already elapsed. Nor may his interest be denied on the ground that he did not put forward the argument that he had requested a review of the order in order to assert a claim to compensation, or on the ground that he did not adduce any facts or circumstances that demonstrate that he has suffered any damage qualifying for compensation.’33

11. The Supreme Court has also attached consequences to the judgment in respect of the related issue regarding care orders (machtigingen tot uithuisplaatsing) whose period of validity has expired in respect of which no interest in bringing an action was formerly accepted. By judgment of 14 October 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the light of the above-mentioned judgment, ‘in cases such as the present one, too, in which a parent opposes a care order for a minor child, it is to be assumed that this parent, having regard to the right to respect for his or her family life guaranteed by article 8 of the Convention, has a legally relevant interest in having the lawfulness of the care order reviewed, and this parent should therefore not have his or her legal interest denied solely because the period for which the order applied has already elapsed’.34

12. The Supreme Court has also adjusted its internal work processes in order to reduce the average throughput time for cases of this type so as to prevent similar violations in the future. The Supreme Court has introduced a screening system in order to filter out those civil cases in which an appeal in cassation has been lodged against an order for deprivation of liberty. Incoming cases of this type will immediately be sent to the responsible Advocate General to avoid delays. It was recently checked whether registry staff also in practice screen incoming cases for the presence of appeals against deprivations of liberty. That proved to be the case.

Just satisfaction

13. In its judgment the Court held that the Government has to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with article 44, paragraph 2 of the Convention, €2,000 in non-pecuniary damages plus any tax that may be chargeable. The Government has paid this amount and notified the Execution Department by emailing it the payment registration form on 1 February 2012.

Conclusion

14. The Government believes that the measures taken fulfil the requirements arising from the Court’s judgment and will prevent similar violations in the future.

The Hague, 7 March 2012

Roeland Böcker

Agent of the Government of the Netherlands

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13235
Reigado Ramos against Portugal

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 73229/01, judgment of 22 November 2005, final on 22 February 2006)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case resulted from the authorities’ failure, from 1997, to take adequate and sufficient action to enforce the applicant’s right of access to his daughter, born in 1995, and that enforcement had not yet taken place at the date of the Court’s judgment (violation of Article 8);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment and noted that no request of just satisfaction was made to the Court which accordingly made no award in this respect (see document DH-DD(2012)52);

Having regularly followed the developments in the execution of the Court’s judgment, in particular the question of individual measures on the basis of the information provided in this respect both by the Government and the applicant regarding the domestic proceedings engaged by the latter in order to obtain resitutio in integrum;

Noting that the above mentioned proceedings were closed on the grounds that it was undesirable to continue them or to impose visits by force against the will of the child, who had reached the age of 16 and that the applicant did not wish to impose such visits;

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46§1 have been adopted;

    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 regarding the execution of the European Court of Human Rights judgment

in the case of Reigado Ramos (Application N° 73229/01)

I - IDENTIFICATION OF THE CASE

Date of the judgment: 22 November 2005

N° of the application: 73229/01

Name of the applicant: Jose Manuel Reigado Ramos

Case description:

The case concerns the failure to take adequate and sufficient action to enforce the applicant's right of access to his child, born in 1995 (violation of Article 8).

In 1998, the applicant brought proceedings seeking the judicial enforcement of an agreement concluded by the applicant and the mother after separation in 1997, regarding their child, according to which the applicant should have a right of access. Over several years, the mother could not be found by the domestic court, even though it undertook several steps to locate her (i.e. by requesting assistance from the police and the social security services). The proceedings were closed in 2003 with the decision by the court to impose a moderate fine on the mother and to award equally moderate damages to the applicant.

Pointing out that the applicant had last seen his daughter on 04/10/1997, when she had been just two years old, the European Court found that the measures taken by the Portuguese authorities with a view to enforcing the agreement, which was still valid, had been automatic and stereotyped and that those authorities had failed to take practical and concrete steps to resolve the issue. The European Court noted in particular that neither the prosecution nor the competent court had tried to bring the parties together or actively involve the social services in finding a solution to the problem, while the simple passing of time was having increasingly serious consequences for the applicant, deprived of any contact with his young child (§§53-54 of the judgment).

II - INDIVIDUAL MEASURES:

a) Payment of the just satisfaction:

No just satisfaction was awarded by the Court, in the absence of a request by the applicant under Art. 41 of the Convention.

b) Other measures:

In February 2007, the Portuguese delegation informed the Committee that, with the assistance of the judicial police, the whereabouts of the mother and the child had been identified.

As agreed before the judge in June 2007, before a new regime on the right to access could be determined, the child and both parents underwent psychological examinations (which began in beginning 2008), followed by preparatory psychological support. The latter started in 2009, through the mediation of the Centre for Children Development (CADIN). In this context, the child clearly showed her refusal to see her father. Although the applicant expressed the wish to meet his daughter and develop his relations with her, he was aware of the need to respect her feelings and to wait for his child to change her current position.

In June, 2010, following the judge's order, a psychotherapeutic intervention only with the child, aimed at the possible re-established of the father-child contact, began.

Following the psychological and psychotherapeutic supports, on 03/05/2011, an interview by the judge with the two parents in the presence of the child took place. The applicant's daughter, now aged 16, expressed again her wish not to have any contact with her father and for any future contact to be her choice, as opposed to an obligation enforced by a court. The applicant did not ask anything further from the court.

Considering the overall situation, the judge noted that the mother indeed continued to disrespect the established visit regime (of 1997) and imposed a new fine on her (following the one of 2003- see case description). Furthermore, in light of the best interests of the child and taking into account the principles enshrined in the case law of the European Court, as well as on the basis of the favourable opinion of the public prosecutor, the judge closed the case on the grounds that it was undesirable to continue it or to impose visits by force, against the will of the child, and the applicant did not wish for the latter.

Ill - GENERAL MEASURES:

a) Publication, translation and dissemination:

A copy of the judgment was sent to all national authorities concerned, including to the lnstituto de Reinseryao Social (the Institute of Social Reintegration, which carries out social investigations ordered in the framework of court proceedings on matters related to parental rights). The judgment was also translated and published on the Internet (www.gddc.pt). In addition, the judgment was sent out by the Portuguese Attorney General to all magistrates working with courts that deal with family cases. Finally, both the Supreme Council of Magistrates and the aforementioned Institute of Social Reintegration were requested to adopt appropriate measures in order to prevent new, similar violations in the future.

b) Legislative measures:

Law No. 61/2008 on divorce (entered into force on 01/12/2008) modified the Civil and the Criminal Codes.

Article 1906 of the Civil Code on the exercise of parental authority provides inter alia that the tribunal will decide on the right of access on the basis of the best interest of the child. According to the new Article 1776-A, an agreement on the exercise of parental authority is submitted to the prosecutor at the first-instance tribunal, who shall assess it within 30 days. In case the prosecutor considers that the agreement respects the best interest of the child, it is sent to the General Register Office for homologation. If, on the contrary, the prosecutor considers that the agreement does not sufficiently respect the best interest of the child, the parents have the possibility to change it according to the prosecutor's assessment or to present a new agreement, which will be again submitted to the prosecutor. In case the parents do not take into account

the assessment of the prosecutor, the latter will send the agreement to the court for a decision by a judge.

Articles 249 (Abduction of minors) and 250 (Maintenance obligation) of the Criminal Code have also been amended. Article 249 provides that child abduction or reiterated and unjustified refusal to abide by agreements regulating the exercise of parental authority is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment or by a up to 240 day-fine. As regards failure to comply with the agreement, the penalty is softened when the parent's behaviour is motivated by the wish to respect the child's will, when the child is over 12 years of age.

c) Other measures:

The Portuguese authorities indicated that the Institute for Social Security has been vested with competences concerning parental authority. The Institute is carrying out activities addressed to all professionals co­ operating with courts in civil tutelary matters aimed at improving their intervention in the field. Moreover, in

2008, 24 training activities on Mediation and conflict management and the Evaluation of parental competences took place. In 2009, the Institute for Social Security carried out 13 training activities on the new law 61/2008. Furthermore, another 13 training activities concerning "Interview Techniques in cases of parental conflict", as well as two workshops on "positive parental relations" took place.

IV - CONCLUSION

The Portuguese Authorities consider that no other individual measure is required in these cases, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Portugal has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13336
2 cases (Diana Karoussiotis; Michael Dore) against Portugal

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 23205/08, judgment of 1 February 2011, final on 1 May 2011)

(Application No. 775/08, judgment of 1 February 2011, final on 1 May 2011)

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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)331F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments, and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in the present cases (see document DH-DD(2012)331F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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 des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

dans les affaires Diana Karoussiotis (R. Nº 23205/08) et Michael Dore (R. Nº 775/08)

I – IDENTIFICATION DES AFFAIRES

    - Affaire Diana Karoussiotis, requête no. 775/08, arrêt du 1 février 2011, définitif le 1 mai 2011

    - Affaire Michael Dore, requête no. 775/08, arrêt du 1 février 2011, définitif le 1 mai 2011

Brève description de la violation :

    Violation de l’article 8 de la Convention (droit au respect de la vie familiale) en raison du retard pris par les autorités portugaises dans le traitement et les suites à donner aux demandes du 2005/2006 visant le retour d’un enfant (en application de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980) et la détermination des responsabilités parentales.

II - MESURES DE CARACTÈRE INDIVIDUEL :

      a) Paiement de l’indemnisation : La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a estimé qu’il n’y avait pas lieu d’octroyer de sommes à titre de satisfaction équitable.

      b) Autres :

    - Dans les deux affaires, les procédures portant sur la demande de retour des enfants été déjà terminées lors des arrêts de la Cour.

    - Affaire Karoussiotis : Dans la procédure de fixation des modalités de l’exercice de l’autorité parentale (Affaire nº 147/05.7 TMBRG devant le tribunal aux affaires familiales (« Tribunal de Família e de Menores ») de Braga) un accord entre les parents est intervenu le 8/07/2010 concernant la garde de l’enfant lequel a été homologué par le juge.

    La traduction de l’extrait du procès-verbal d’audience concernant l’accord intervenu le 8/07/2010 entre les parents a été versée au dossier.

    - Affaire Dore : La procédure de fixation des modalités de l’exercice de l’autorité parentale engagée devant le tribunal aux affaires familiales (« Tribunal de Família e de Menores ») de Porto (Affaire nº 921/07.OTMPRT-A) a été clôturée le 25 octobre 2011 et le jugement rendu est déjà passé en force de chose jugée. Cette procédure a eu pour objet le litige concernant la garde de l’enfant, portant également sur une demande de pension alimentaire et le régime concernant l’exercice du droit de visite et d’hébergement.

La traduction du dispositif du jugement rendu dans cette affaire a été versée au dossier.

III - MESURES DE CARACTÈRE GÉNÉRAL :

Les arrêts ont été mises en ligne sur le site officiel de la « Procuradoria-Geral da República » - Cabinet de documentation et droit comparé et ont été traduits en langue portugaise. Leur diffusion auprès des Magistrats exerçant leurs fonctions aux tribunaux aux affaires familiales (« Tribunais de Família e de Menores ») a été demandée. Ces arrêts figureront au programme de formation initiale et continue de magistrats.

Il faut d’abords noter qu’il s’agit des violations isolées et qu’en ce type des procédures il n’y a aucun problème généralisé de longueur des procédures.

Le texte législatif portugais applicable à ce type d’affaires (« Organização Tutelar de Menores ») prévoit l’examen urgent, notamment, des mesures provisoires (article 157) et une procédure d’urgence (article 160), selon le libellé suivant :

« Article 157 (Mesures provisoires et conservatoires)

1 – A tout moment de la procédure et dès lors qu’il l’estime approprié, le tribunal peut statuer, à titre provisoire, sur des matières qui doivent être examinées à la fin de la procédure et ordonner l’accomplissement d’actes de procédure jugés indispensables afin d’assurer l’exécution effective de la mesure.

2 – Les mesures déjà prises à titre définitif peuvent être également provisoirement modifiées.

3 – En application des dispositions du présent article, le tribunal procèdera aux investigations sommaires qu’il jugera appropriées.

Article 160 (Procédures d’urgence)

Les procédures visant la protection des mineurs en matière civile (« processos tutelares cíveis ») dont le retard peut porter préjudice aux intérêts du mineur se poursuivent pendant les vacances judiciaires. ».

Compte tenu de ces dispositions législatives, les autorités portugaises agissent toujours avec une grande célérité, comme l’exige aussi la Convention de La Haye de 1980, et considèrent qu’elles accomplissent tous les actes de procédure et administratifs nécessaires à l’examen des demandes de retour d’enfants dans les plus brefs délais. Dans l’optique de la sauvegarde des intérêts du mineur et eu égard à la large marge d’appréciation dont jouit l’État sur le terrain de l’article 8 de la Convention, les autorités administratives et judiciaires portugaises agissent avec toute la diligence possible et raisonnable au vu des circonstances pour traiter rapidement ce type d’affaires.

Du point de vue législatif, les autorités portugaises estiment par conséquent qu’aucune autre action supplémentaire ne s’avère nécessaire pour ce genre d’affaires outre la sensibilisation des juges à la nécessité de donner une suite rapide aussi aux demandes introduites dans le cadre de l’application de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980.

IV - CONCLUSION

Les autorités portugaises considèrent que les mesures mentionnées ci-dessus sont suffisantes en vue de l’exécution des arrêts. Au vu des mesures de caractère individuel et général déjà adoptées et étant donné que les procédures portant fixation des modalités de l’exercice de l’autorité parentale sont terminées, les autorités portugaises considèrent qu’il n’y a pas lieu d’adopter d’autres mesures.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13437
Malysh and two other cases against the Russian Federation

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Malysh and others, application No. 30280/03, judgment of 11/02/2010, final on 28/06/2010

Tronin, application No. 24461/02, judgment of 18/03/2010, final on 04/10/2010

SPK Dimskiy, application No. 27191/02, judgment of 18/03/2010, final on 04/10/2010)

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 referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments in the Malysh and others, SPK Dimskiy and Tronin cases, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that these cases concern unjustified interference with the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the authorities' failure to set up a procedure for implementation of an entitlement to seek redemption of the Urozhay-90 bonds (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in the Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures it has taken to comply with the Court’s judgment in view of its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

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 for in the judgments (see details in the 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 these cases and

    DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)134

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment

in Malysh and two other cases against the Russian Federation

Introductory summary of the cases

These cases concern an unjustified interference with the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the State’s failure over several years to adopt legislation providing for the procedure of the settlement of the debt arising out of the Urozhay-90 bonds. These bonds were issued by the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR) in order to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of consumer goods in high demand at the time (such as refrigerators, washing machines and cars).

In 1995, Parliament passed the Commodity Bonds Act which recognised the bonds as part of Russia’s internal debt and invited the government to adopt a programme for the settlement of this debt. Although in 2000 such a programme was presented for other types of bonds, the application of the Act was repeatedly suspended as regards the Urozhay-90 bonds. It was only in 2009 that the Parliament eventually passed the Buyout Act setting out a detailed procedure for these bonds.

The Court noted that since the adoption in 1995 of the Commodity Bonds Act, the applicants had a legitimate expectation of obtaining some form of redemption of their bonds.

The Court consequently considered that the Russian authorities, by imposing successive limitations on the application of the legislative provision establishing the basis for the applicants' right to redemption of the Urozhay-90 bonds and by failing for years to legislate on the procedure for implementation of that entitlement, kept the applicants in a state of uncertainty, which was incompatible in itself with the obligation to secure the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Malysh and others

(30280/03)

--

EUR 1 800, to each of the six applicants

EUR 2 000

EUR 12 800

Paid on 27/01/2011

Tronin (24461/02)

--

EUR 1 800

--

EUR 1 800

Paid on 03/12/2010

SPK Dimskiy (27191/02)

--

--

EUR 1 000

EUR 1 000

Paid on 04/05/2011

The just satisfaction was paid under conditions accepted by the applicants in the case of Malysh and others and SPK Dimskiy.

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded non-pecuniary damage in the cases of Malysh and others and Tronin. In the case of SPK Dimskiy, the Court considered that, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the applicant company’s status as a legal entity, the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. Accordingly, it dismissed the applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage in that case.

As regards pecuniary damage, the European Court dismissed the applicants’ claims in all these cases, noting that they could apply for redemption of their bonds under the 2009 Act. Amongst the applicants, only Mr Malysh availed himself of that possibility and received moneys for his bond, in November 2010. The other applicants have not submitted any claims following the judgment of the European Court.

Consequently, no further individual measures appear to be necessary.

II. General measures

      Legislative and regulatory measures

On 19 July 2009, a federal law governing the procedure for the buyout of the Urozhay-90 bonds was adopted (no. 200-FZ – “the Buyout Act”). It established that holders of the bonds would be paid, in the period between 15 December 2009 and 31 December 2010, an amount equivalent to the nominal value of the bonds divided by 1 000 (section 2). The law also amended the Commodity Bonds Act by removing the reference to the Urozhay-90 bonds from its Section 1.

On 15 September 2009, the government issued Resolution No. 749, setting out the detailed procedure for payments in exchange for the bonds in question.

In its Malysh and others judgment, the European Court noted with reference to the above legislative and regulatory measures adopted that “this welcome development has put an end to the situation of legal uncertainty which was the main subject of the applicants’ complaint” (see §69 of the judgment).

      Publication and dissemination

All the judgments were disseminated amongst the competent authorities and published in Russian in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights.

In the circumstances, no further general measures appear necessary.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13538
Gattei against San Marino

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 63983/09, decision of 10 May 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 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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13639
46 cases against Serbia

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

A., application No. 50780/06

20/03/2012

ALEKSANDRIC, application No. 1339/08

08/03/2011

ANASTASOV, application No. 53337/07

08/03/2011

ARSENOVIC, application No. 19682/08

20/03/2012

DOKIC (II), application No. 20946/11

20/03/2012

DOKIC, application No. 48735/07

31/01/2012

DOKIC, application No. 16702/08

27/09/2011

DURICA, application No. 31402/08

08/03/2011

EVT COMPANY (II), application No. 403/08

29/03/2011

GRADANSKI LIST - CREDENDA CLASSICS D.O.O. and others, application No. 11707/07

21/06/2011

ILJANA MILOSAVLJEVIC (4), application No. 40721/06

22/02/2011

JELIC, application No. 52512/07

29/03/2011

JOKSIC, application No. 49337/06

13/12/2011

JOVANOVIC, application No. 52464/07

09/11/2010

KAROVIC, application No. 18998/08

29/03/2011

KERKEZ and ALEKSIC, application No. 36185/08

10/05/2011

KODZO, application No. 24262/08

08/03/2011

LAZAREVIC, application No. 14050/07

29/03/2011

MANOLA and others, application No. 50480/07

15/03/2011

MARIC, application No. 24208/08

28/01/2011

MARKOVIC, application No. 16722/08

27/09/2011

MAVRIC, application No. 5245/07

29/03/2011

MIHIC, application No. 1268/08

07/12/2010

MILENKOVIC, application No. 48197/06

29/03/2011

MILOSAVLJEVIC 23, application No. 18501/06

29/03/2011

MILOSAVLJEVIC 31, application No. 21482/07

08/03/2011

MILOSEVIC, application No. 10234/08

15/11/2011

MIRC, application No. 30829/08

29/03/2011

MLADENOVIC, application No. 30016/06

15/03/2011

MUTAVDZIC, application No. 24193/08

28/01/2011

NEDELJKOVIC, application No. 13350/07

06/03/2012

PEJCINOVIC, application No. 32728/08

29/03/2011

PETROVIC, application No. 22144/07

29/03/2011

RADIN, application No. 30828/08

24/05/2011

RADIN, application No. 36575/08

29/03/2011

RADOJICIC and others, application No. 54771/07

06/03/2012

ROZAJAC, application No. 14738/08

29/03/2011

SABAREDZOVIC, application No. 5953/07

29/03/2011

SKORIC, application No. 43395/07

29/03/2011

SPASOVIC, application No. 24305/08

08/03/2011

SUICA, application No. 41507/08

09/11/2010

TRIFKOVIC, application No. 26432/07

28/01/2011

VIDOJEVIC, application No. 36151/08

27/09/2011

VLACIC, application No. 5925/08

29/03/2011

VUJCIN-PAVLICIC, application No. 19378/07

20/03/2012

ZILKIC, application No. 29083/08

29/03/2011

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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13740
54 cases against Slovak Republic

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

BACO, application No 13046/07

31/08/2010

BANYKO, application No 32523/07

07/09/2010

BARTL, application No 43298/07

14/12/2010

BARTL, application No 43795/07

07/09/2010

BARTL, application No 45072/09

14/06/2011

BARTL, application No 64004/09

14/06/2011

BOD, application No 62067/09

14/06/2011

BODNAR, application No 52200/07

22/06/2010

BRLJEVICOVA, application No 29102/09

22/11/2011

CAPCIKOVA, application No 27780/10

06/03/2012

DMF A. S., application No 34320/09

20/09/2011

DRAHULA, application No 32171/10

14/12/2010

FIGMIKOVA, application No 22573/09

28/06/2011

FRANKOVA, application No 23292/10

28/06/2011

FRKOVA, application No 16691/10

20/09/2011

GABCOVA, application No 42397/10

11/10/2011

HAMMEL, application No 49236/07

11/10/2011

HARNOC, application No 34095/08

05/10/2010

HORVATH, application No 28942/07

29/06/2010

HREBIK, application No 22973/10

27/03/2012

HRUSKOVA, application No 47381/08

05/10/2010

HUSOVSKY, application No 17727/10

07/12/2010

HUTAROVA, application No 12805/10

07/12/2010

KAKAS, application No 73947/10

28/06/2011

KENDERA and KENDEROVA, application No 9237/07

08/06/2010

KICINOVA, application No 3377/09

14/12/2010

KLISKY, application No 64091/09

28/06/2011

KOLESAROVA and others, application No 10482/09

08/03/2011

KOMANICKY, application No 54136/08

05/10/2010

KOMPAN and others, application No 50028/09

28/06/2011

KONKOLOVSKA, application No 23279/10

28/06/2011

KOSARKO, application No 9355/07

08/06/2010

KOSARKOVA, application No 9746/07

08/06/2010

KURUCOVA and others, application No 63946/09

20/09/2011

MAKSIM, application No 69587/10

11/10/2011

MATI and others, application No 51066/09

10/01/2012

MISKOVIC, application No 42992/10

28/06/2011

MULLEROVA and others, application No 5970/08

22/06/2010

OBSITOSOVA, application No 21647/09

07/09/2010

OLEJARNIK, application No 15876/10

11/10/2011

OLIJAS, application No 50568/08

25/01/2011

OLLAREK, application No 58135/09

07/09/2010

SCHREIBEROVA, application No 23271/10

28/06/2011

SLIVKA, application No 47881/09

07/09/2010

STRBOVA, application No 37610/08

28/09/2010

SUHAJ, application No 23265/10

28/06/2011

TELOVYCHOVNA JEDNOTA VSZ KOSICE, application No 40502/09

28/06/2011

TELOVYCHOVNA JEDNOTA VSZ KOSICE, application No 6550/10

28/06/2011

TELOVYCHOVNA JEDNOTA VSZ KOSICE, application No 10336/10

28/06/2011

TELOVYCHOVNA JEDNOTA VSZ KOSICE, application No 66684/10

28/06/2011

TOMKO, application No 45108/08

20/09/2011

VARGA, application No 3728/09

20/09/2011

ZIEGLER, application No 1817/07

30/11/2010

ZIMAN, application No 20670/10

18/10/2010

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 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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13841
five cases against Slovenia

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

DREO, application No. 3248/07

05/10/2010

PETEK, application No. 8441/06

02/11/2010

RUSJAN, application No. 36175/06

23/11/2010

SAGAJ, application No. 9750/05

05/10/2010

TRNOVSEK, application No. 20844/03

01/06/2010

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 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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)13942
2 cases (Emre; Emre No. 2) against Switzerland

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 42034/04, judgment of 22 May 2008, final on 22 September 2008)

(Application No. 5056/10, judgment of 11 October 2011, final on 11 January 2012)

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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)401F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)401F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Emre no. 2 c. CH, arrêt du 11 octobre 2011 (devenu définitif le 11 janvier 2012)

Rapport d'action (couvrant également l’exécution de l’arrêt Emre c. CH du 22 mai 2008,

devenu définitif le 22 septembre 2008)

I. Objet

L'affaire concerne une atteinte au droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale du requérant, en raison de son expulsion du territoire suisse et à l’obligation d’exécuter les arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CourEDH ; violation de l’article 8, combiné avec l’article 46).

II. Résumé de la procédure

En 1986, le requérant, de nationalité turque, est arrivé en Suisse avec sa famille avant l'âge de six ans. Suite à diverses infractions, le service des étrangers du canton de Neuchâtel lui a imposé en juin 2003 une interdiction de séjour pour une durée indéterminée ; cette décision a été confirmée par le Tribunal fédéral (TF) le 3 mai 2004.

Dans son premier arrêt du 22 mai 2008, la CourEDH a estimé que les autorités suisses n'avaient pas ménagé un juste équilibre entre d'une part les intérêts du requérant et de sa famille, et d'autre part leur propre intérêt en matière de contrôle de l'immigration. En effet, si la mesure litigieuse était bien prévue par la loi et avait un but légitime, elle n'était pas nécessaire dans une société démocratique. Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la CourEDH a notamment pris en compte : le fait qu'une partie au moins des infractions commises par le requérant relevait de la délinquance juvénile ; la faiblesse des liens qu'il entretient avec son pays d'origine, ce qui - étant donné les problèmes de santé du requérant - était susceptible de rendre encore plus difficile son retour dans ce pays ; la gravité relative des infractions pour lesquelles le requérant a été condamné ; et le caractère définitif de la mesure d'éloignement.

Le requérant a ensuite déposé une demande de révision auprès du TF. Le 6 juillet 2009, celui-ci l'a accueillie et a modifié l’arrêt du 3 mai 2004 limitant à dix ans la durée de la mesure d'éloignement à compter de l'imposition de celle-ci le 2 juin 2003.

Le 11 janvier 2010, le requérant a introduit une requête devant la CourEDH dans laquelle il se plaint, sur le terrain de l'article 46 de la Convention, de ce que l'interprétation donnée à l'arrêt de la CourEDH par le TF ne cadre pas avec les conclusions qui sous-tendent le constat de violation de l'article 8 par la CourEDH. En outre, l'interdiction du territoire suisse pour une durée de dix ans, prononcé par le TF, serait constitutive d'une nouvelle atteinte à son droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale au sens de l'article 8.

Par arrêt rendu le 11 octobre 2011, la CourEDH a constaté une violation de l’article 8, combiné avec l’article 46.

III. Mesures d’exécution

Les actions suivantes ont été envisagées en l’espèce

A. Remarques liminaires :

- L’arrêt de la CourEDH concerne une requête qui a été introduite en raison de l’arrêt du TF rendu sur la demande de révision du requérant à la suite de l’arrêt de la CourEDH du 22 mai 2008 dans l’affaire Emre c. Suisse (req. 42034/04) dans lequel la Cour EDH avait constaté une violation de l’article 8 CEDH et accordé au requérant la somme de 7'650 Euros au titre de la satisfaction équitable.

- L’équivalent en CHF de la somme accordée (CHF 12'622.50) avait été versé au requérant le 20 octobre 2008.

- L’arrêt du 22 mai 2008 avait été transmis aux autorités directement concernées le 25 mai 2008 ; de plus, il a été publié dans le Rapport trimestriel sur la jurisprudence de la CEDH 2/2008 et diffusion auprès de tous les cantons et autorités fédérales du résumé de l’arrêt dans les trois langues officielles (f/a/i) ;

B. Mesures prises sur le plan individuel :

- Information du TF et des autres autorités fédérales et cantonales directement concernées (réglé 18 octobre 2011)

- Versement de la satisfaction équitable (réglé le 6 janvier 2012) ;

- Le 1er février 2012, le requérant a saisi le TF d’une demande de révision en vertu de l’article 122 de loi fédérale du 17 juin 2005 sur le TF [RS 173.110]. Par arrêt du 8 mars 2012, le Tribunal fédéral a levé avec effet immédiat la mesure d’expulsion prononcée à l’encontre du requérant (ATF 2F-1/2012 du 8 mars 2012 ; http://www.bger.ch/fr/index/juridiction/jurisdiction-inherit-template/jurisdiction-recht/jurisdiction-recht-urteile2000.htm

C. Mesures prises sur le plan général :

- Publication au Rapport trimestriel sur la jurisprudence de la CEDH 4/2011 et diffusion auprès de tous les cantons et autorités fédérales du résumé de l’arrêt dans les trois langues officielles (f/a/i) : http://www.bj.admin.ch/content/dam/data/staat_buerger/menschenrechte/eurokonvention/ber-egmr-2011q4-f.pdf

- Le Gouvernement suisse part de l’idée que les autorités et tribunaux internes vont, comme d’habitude, donner plein effet audit arrêt. Ainsi aucune autre mesure ne paraît nécessaire.

Conclusions de l'Etat défendeur :

Le Gouvernement suisse estime que les mesures prises ont entièrement remédié aux conséquences pour le requérant de la violation de la Convention constatée par la Cour européenne dans cette affaire, que ces mesures vont prévenir des violations semblables et que la Suisse a par conséquent rempli ses obligations en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)14043
Khelili against Switzerland

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 16188/07, judgment of 18 October 2011, final on 8 March 2012)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)475F);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)475F);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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.

Khelili contre Suisse, arrêt du 18 octobre 2011 (devenu définitif le 8 mars 2012)

Rapport d’action

Résumé introductif de l’affaire :

Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale (art. 8 CEDH) ; mention de prostituée dans la banque de données de la police. Le maintien de la mention « prostituée » dans le dossier de police pendant des années n’était ni compatible avec la présomption d’innocence, ni nécessaire dans une société démocratique.

A. Sur le plan individuel :

- Versement de la satisfaction équitable (15 000 euros au titre du dommage moral). (réglé le 10 avril 2012)

- Par courrier du 27 avril 2012, la Cheffe du département de la sécurité, de la police et de l’environnement du canton de Genève s’est empressée d’informer le gouvernement suisse que la mention de "prostituée" a été définitivement biffée du dossier de police de la requérante.

- La requérante peut saisir le Tribunal fédéral d’une demande de révision en vertu de l’article 122 de loi fédérale du 17 juin 2005 sur le F [RSS 173.110].

B. Sur le plan général :

- Information du Tribunal fédéral et des autres autorités directement concernées. (réglé le 24 octobre 2011)

- publication au Rapport trimestriel sur la jurisprudence de la CEDH 4/2011 et diffusion auprès de tous les cantons et autorités fédérales du résumé de l’arrêt dans les trois langues officielles (f/a/i) : http://www.bj.admin.ch/content/dam/data/staat_buerger/menschenrechte/eurokonvention/ber-egmr-2011q4-f.pdf

- Les faits à l'origine de l'arrêt de la Cour sont antérieurs à l'entrée en vigueur de la loi sur la prostitution (LProst), du 17 décembre 2009 (RSG I 2 49), et qu'ils ne pourraient par ailleurs plus se produire aujourd'hui. La police genevoise a abandonné, avec effet immédiat, la déclaration qui était enregistrée jusqu'ici par les personnes qui venaient s'annoncer à la brigade des mœurs comme exerçant la prostitution, et qui générait automatiquement la création d'une identité dans le système informatique de la police (indépendamment du fichier de la brigade des mœurs), avec mention de la profession de prostitué(e). En supprimant la déclaration lors de la procédure d'enregistrement, la police a supprimé de fait l’identité créée pour l'occasion dans les fichiers de la police, ce qui évite que la profession de prostitué(e), en relation avec le recensement, ne refasse surface en d'autres occasions (comme cela a été le cas dans l'affaire de la requérante).

- En outre, le Gouvernement suisse part de l'idée que les autorités et tribunaux internes vont, comme d'habitude, donner plein effet audit arrêt. Ainsi aucune autre mesure supplémentaire n'est envisagée.

Conclusions de l'Etat défendeur :

Le gouvernement estime qu’aucune mesure individuelle supplémentaire n’est requise dans cette affaire et que les mesures générales prises vont prévenir des violations semblables et que la Suisse a par conséquent rempli ses obligations en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention dans la présente affaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)14144
37 cases against « the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

BELJA, application No 21354/05

02/11/2010

BOSILKOVA, application No 31708/07

06/12/2011

DAVCEVA, application No 29725/07

18/01/2011

DIMOV, application No 11792/07

06/12/2011

EFTIMOVSKA, application No 22612/07

18/01/2011

FIDANOVSKA, application No 22231/07

06/12/2011

GADZOV & GICEV, application No 25190/07

15/03/2011

GLIGOROV, application No 6233/08

16/11/2010

HASAN-OZGUN, application No 35621/04

06/12/2011

JANA RISTOVA & others, application No 31114/07

06/12/2011

JANAKIEV, application No 24379/07

15/03/2011

JANEV, application No 31169/07

18/01/2011

JANEVSKA I, application No 34190/07

21/09/2010

JONCEVSKA, application No 11086/07

15/11/2011

JOVANOVA & others, application No 29880/07

13/03/2012

JOVANOVA, application No 20212/11

13/03/2012

KITANOVSKI, application No 47210/06

21/09/2010

MALCEVA, application No 6438/07

06/12/2011

MILANOV, application No 25136/07

18/01/2011

MITEVSKA-AVRAMOVA, application No 30760/05

15/11/2011

MITEVSKI, application No 53445/07

15/03/2011

NAKOV II, application No 31863/07

21/09/2010

NIKOLOVSKA & others, application No 31697/07

18/01/2011

NIKOLOVSKA, application No 22793/07

21/09/2010

PETRUSEV, application No 17410/07

06/12/2011

RIBARSKI & others, application No 25175/07

15/03/2011

SABANSKI, application No 15891/07

18/01/2011

STOJANOV and others, application No 25677/07

15/03/2011

SUZANA RISTOVA & others, application No 27254/07

16/11/2010

TOPUZOVI, application No 24136/05

18/01/2011

TRAJCEVSKI, application No 27240/07

02/11/2010

VASILEV, application No 6235/08

15/03/2011

VASILEV, application No 6225/08

16/11/2010

VELKOV, application No 22719/07

15/11/2011

VILA & others, application No 29493/05

12/04/2011

VRETOVSKI & others, application No 44562/06

31/01/2011

ZEPCESKA, application No 45999/07

15/11/2011

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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)14245
Mürsel Eren against Turkey

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 60856/00, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006)

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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)767E);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)767E);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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 European Court of Human Rights Judgment

in the case of EREN I TURKEY (60856/2000) dated 7 February 2006

ACTION REPORT

A. FACTS

1. The applicant, Mürsel EREN ("the applicant"), complained that even though he had received a high score in the university entrance exam, his exam was cancelled by an academic committee composed of three professors, without relying on a lawful reason or concrete evidence in the decision, and therefore his right to education was violated.

B. CONTENT OF THE JUDGMENT

2. With its judgment dated 7 February 2006, the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court") found the applicant's complaint justified and held that there was a violation of Article 2 of the Additional Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention").

C. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES:

3. The just satisfaction awarded by the Court was paid to the applicant and the relevant payment documents have already been submitted to the Committee of Ministers.

4. Upon the applicant's appeal, the proceedings were re-opened and the judgment regarding the cancellation of the applicant's exam was quashed with the 8111 Chamber of the State Council 's decision dated 19.01.2007. The decision of the 8111 Chamber became final with the approval decision of the General Board of Administrative Cases of the State Council dated 23.12.2010. Subsequently, necessary information was given by the OSYM (Student Selection and Placement Centre) to the Ankara University Chancery for the placement of the applicant to the Ankara University Faculty of Law, which was the I 51 faculty on the applicant's list of preferred schools.

D. GENERAL MEASURES:

I -Translation and Publication of the Judgment:

7. The Eren judgment of the ECtHR was translated into Turkish and published on the official web-site of Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice. This judgment is available at http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr.

8. The translation of the judgment was sent to the local court that rendered the decision, the

State Council and the Ministry of Interior.

II. Execution of the Judgment:

14. The judgment in question is related to an isolated situation that requires no general measure to be taken. The Turkish Government have taken all necessary individual measures for the execution of the judgment, and there is no other individual measure that should be taken. In the light of the information given above, Turkey has taken necessary steps for the execution of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment should be removed from the examination process of the Committee of Ministers.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)14346
56 cases against Turkey

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

ACAR, 14771/10

30/08/2011

ADAMAN 44791/07

27/09/2011

AKGOZ, 38927/09

30/08/2011

ARPACI, 597/08

13/12/2011

ASLAN, 1331/08

30/08/2011

AVCI, 23477/08

15/11/2011

BABAYIGIT and others, 26854/08

13/12/2011

BABAYIGIT, 5806/08

30/08/2011

BAYHAN, 8361/07

30/08/2011

BAYRAM, 56524/09

27/09/2011

BAYTAP, 17579/05

09/11/2010

BINGOL, 38657/06

01/06/2010

BOZAN KAYA, 22521/06

15/11/2011

BULUT, 56520/09

27/09/2011

CAGDAVUL and others, 9542/06

27/09/2011

CANDOGAN, 27658/08

15/11/2011

CEMAL SUNBUL and others, 19430/05

05/07/2011

CEVIKBAY, 3798/10

05/07/2011

CIMEN, 50451/09

29/11/2011

DOGAN, 23284/08

15/11/2011

EKINCI, 42777/07

21/06/2011

EL, 40665/05

27/09/2011

EMRE, 24544/08

29/11/2011

GULECYUZ and KUTLULAR, 24906/07

30/08/2011

HALICI, 31388/09

21/06/2011

INANC and others, 21280/05

10/01/2012

IPEKYUZ, 43699/05

09/11/2010

KARADAG, 28719/07

10/01/2012

KAYA and others, 23776/08

30/08/2011

KAYNAK, 34451/08

05/07/2011

KESKINOZ, 10159/06

27/09/2011

KILIC, 8343/08

30/08/2011

KIZILAY, 4868/08

15/11/2011

KOKSAL, 19466/09

13/09/2011

KOLAY, 2079/09

27/09/2011

KORKMAZ, 44026/09

21/06/2011

MORANER, 27559/06

13/12/2011

MUSTAFA KAYA, 22501/06

15/11/2011

NART, 18330/07

13/12/2011

OZHAN, 26113/05

10/01/2012

OZKAHRAMAN, 3544/08

15/11/2011

OZKORKMAZ, 61041/08

27/09/2011

SARITAS, 30662/09

27/09/2011

SAYAN, 846/07

27/09/2011

SIMSEK, 46643/09

27/09/2011

SORLI AND DELIBAS, 16338/08

15/11/2011

TEKIN, 3786/06

06/07/2010

TOLUN, 30681/08

15/11/2011

TOREN and others, 26264/06

13/12/2011

UGUZ, 44801/08

15/11/2011

UVEYSOGLU, 17902/09

13/12/2011

UYGUN, 4817/08

15/11/2011

UYGUN, 5370/08

15/11/2011

UYGUN, 6834/08

15/11/2011

YILDIRIM, 41095/08

31/01/2012

ZUGURLI, 37161/05

06/07/2010

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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)14447
Kay and others against the United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No 37341/06, judgment of 21 September 2010, final on 21 December 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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2011)1162E);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2011)1162E);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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

Name of Case Kay v UK (application no. 37341/06; judgment final on 21 December 2010)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 8th August 2011

Case Summary

1. Case description:

      - The applicants were occupiers of housing units owned by Lambeth borough council, which had originally sublet the accommodation to a charitable housing trust. Once Lambeth terminated the lease in November 1999, the occupiers became trespassers against the council. Lambeth then brought possession proceedings to evict them. The applicants were not permitted to raise their human rights as a defence to possession proceedings, and they complained that this breached their right to respect for private and home life under Article 8 (the right to a family life). They were unsuccessful before the domestic courts but the Strasbourg Court found a violation of Article 8, insofar as the applicants had been prevented from raising it as a defence.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously supplied.

3. Individual measures:

- The Government considers no further individual measures are required because the violation of Article 8 was held to be in procedural aspects only.

- We understand from Lambeth that the financing for the redevelopment of the block in which he was living has fallen through, and Mr Kay is still living there. There is therefore no need for further individual measures. Lambeth also said that Mr Kay and his family may be entitled to accommodation as a homeless family if the development goes ahead in the future. We consider that if any steps were taken to evict him, he would now be able to raise Article 8 rights as a defence following the decision in Pinnock.

General Measures

4. Publication:

- The judgment has been published in:

    - Case Reports

    Times Law Reports (2010) Times, 18 October

    All England Law Reports [2010] All ER (D) 107 (Sep)

    New Law Journal [2010] NLJR 1346

    - Articles

    New Law Journal

    160 NLJ 1638

    26 November 2010

    Public: Beating a path

    - New Law Journal

    160 NLJ 1365

    8 October 2010

    Human rights / Housing: An ongoing saga

    - Law Society Gazette

    L.S.G. 2010, 107(41), 20-21.

    Local government (October)

    Nicholas Dobson

    - Practical Law Companies

    P.L.C. 2010, 21(10), 48-49.

    Possession proceedings: Article 8.

    - Property Law Journal

    P.L.J. 2010, 259, 6-10.

    Defences to possession proceedings.

    Clare Collier

    - Legal Action (2010) November Pages 29-33

    Recent developments in public law: Part 1 (November)

5. Dissemination:

      - The Government considers it is unnecessary to disseminate the judgment because the recent Supreme Court decision in Manchester City Council v Pinnock clarifies the existing domestic law position; please see below. As the law has already changed, we consider that highlighting the previous legal position would be confusing.

      - The judgment in Pinnock has been covered extensively in the specialist housing press as well as the legal press. It is considered that any additional measures to draw attention to that judgment are unnecessary.

6. Other general measures:

      - The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because the Supreme Court decision in Manchester City Council v Pinnock, available at:

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0180_Judgment.pdf

    clarified the law in relation to possession proceedings. The Supreme Court in Pinnock invited written submissions on the effect of Kay v UK as the judgment was handed down after the oral hearing in Pinnock in July 2010. The decision in Pinnock has now modified the law as set out in the House of Lords decision in Kay v Lambeth.

    - Consistently with the judgment in Kay v UK, it holds that, in principle, any public sector occupier at risk of losing their home must have the opportunity to have the proportionality of that step considered by the county court. This consideration can include factors such as the occupier’s personal circumstances. This is a significant clarification of the law since Kay was before the House of Lords. As the Supreme Court’s decision sets a binding precedent for lower courts, the Department does not consider that any further steps are necessary to implement the judgment.

7. - The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)14548
McCann against the United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No 19009/04, judgment of 13 May 2008, final on 13 August 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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2011)1161);

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2011)1161);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

    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

Name of Case McCann v United Kingdom (application no. 19009/04; judgment final on

13 May 2008) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 8th August 2008

Case Summary

1. Case description:

      - This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant's right to respect for his home following his eviction in 2005, pursuant to the service of a common law 'notice to quit', without the possibility to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal

      - The Court that the lack of adequate procedural safeguards resulted in a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (§55).

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously supplied.

3. Individual measures:

      - The Government considers no further individual measures are necessary in light of the Court finding an Article 8 violation in its procedural aspect only, and its observation that “it is far from clear whether a domestic tribunal in a position to assess the proportionality of the eviction would not still have granted the order” (§59).

General Measures

4. Publication:

      - The judgment of the European Court was widely published, for example [2008] All ER (D) 146 (May); [2008] Fam. Law 729; Times, 23 May 2008. Furthermore, several articles and case comments have been published with respect to the judgment.

5. Dissemination:

      - Given the substantial commentary on the judgment, the Government does not consider it necessary to disseminate it to local authorities.

6. Other general measures:

      - The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because the outstanding ECHR issues were clarified by the UK Supreme Court in the case of Pinnock v Manchester City Council, in which the Department intervened. Judgment in Pinnock was given on 3rd November 2010.

      - Pinnock clarified the law in relation to possession proceedings. The Justices also invited written submissions on the effect of Kay v UK as the judgment was handed down after the oral hearing in Pinnock in July 2010. Pinnock has now modified the law as set out in the House of Lords decision in Kay v Lambeth. It also takes into account the McCann decision. Consistently with the judgment in Kay v UK, it holds that, in principle, any public sector occupier at risk of losing their home must have the opportunity to have the proportionality of that step considered by the county court. This consideration can include factors such as the occupier’s personal circumstances.

      - Pinnock analyses the Strasbourg jurisprudence from para 30 of the judgment, and expressly considers McCann at para 35. Pinnock marks a significant clarification of the law since the McCann case was before the ECtHR. As the Supreme Court’s decision sets a binding precedent for lower courts, the Department does not consider that any further steps are necessary to implement the judgment.

7. - The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

2 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

3 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

4 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

5 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

6 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

7 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

8 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

9 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

10 Deep link: http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/praksis.html

11 Deep link: http://www.nyidanmark.dkiNR/rdonlyres/90025217-0887-4228-88BF-89BAE159E196/0/notat_af_8_juli_2011.pdf

12 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

13 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

14 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

15 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

16 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

17 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

18 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

19 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

20 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

21 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

22 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

23 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

24 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

25 As set out in CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 and CM/Inf/DH(2010)37E.

26 EHRC 2011, 146, with commentary from J. van der Velde.

27 NJB 2011, no. 1824.

28 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

29 As set out in CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 and CM/Inf/DH(2010)37E.

30 EHRC2011, 130, with commentary from J.H. Crijns.

31 NJB 2011, 1591.

32 RFR 2011, 92.

33 LJN: BQ2292, Supreme Court, 24 June 2011.

34 LJN: BR5151, Supreme Court, 14 October 2011.

35 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

36 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

37 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

38 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

39 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

40 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

41 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

42 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

43 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

44 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

45 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

46 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

47 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

48 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents