Ministers’ Deputies

Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2012)1157     10 December 2012



1157th meeting (DH), 4-6 December 2012

Decisions adopted

Volume of Resolutions



CONTENTS

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)146 Houtman and Meeus against Belgium 5
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)147 Faniel against Belgium 8
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)148 2 cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina 11
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)149 Kushoglu against Bulgaria 14
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)150 Bulinvar OD and Hrusanov against Bulgaria 17
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)151 Svetoslav Hristov against Bulgaria 19
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)152 Nedelcho Popov against Bulgaria 21
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)153 Mincheva against Bulgaria 23
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)154 Mihalkov against Bulgaria 26
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)155 Ivanova against Bulgaria 29
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)156 Ignatov, Gochev and Nalbantski against Bulgaria 31
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)157 Hovanesian against Bulgaria 34
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)158 Borisova against Bulgaria 36
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)159 Velted-98 AD against Bulgaria 38
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)160 Simeonov against Bulgaria 40
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)161 Kostadin Mihaylov against Bulgaria 42
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)162 Bevacqua against Bulgaria 44
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)163 Andreev against Bulgaria 46
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)164 Evgeni Ivanov Titovi, Özver and Shipkov against Bulgaria 47
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)165 Al-Akidi and 5 other cases against Bulgaria 50
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)166 Bojilov and 8 other cases against Bulgaria 54
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)167 Nikolova No. 2 and two other cases against Bulgaria 60
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)168 Zdravko Petrov against Bulgaria 64
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)169 Boychev and others against Bulgaria 66
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)170 Breukhoven against Czech Republic 68
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)171 Kaura against Finland 70
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)172 R.H. against Finland 72
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)173 Baccichetti against France 74
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)174 Bowler International Unit against France 76
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)175 Chatellier against France 79
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)176 Mancel and Branquart against France 81
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)177 Poirot against France 84
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)178 Patoux against France 86
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)179 Baudoin against France 88
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)180 Walchli against France 91
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)181 Mor against France 93
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)182 Vernes against France 95
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)183 Mohd and John against Greece 97
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)184 Dimitras and others and Dimitras and others No. 2 against Greece 100
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)185 Tsirikakis, Hatzitakis and Karagiannis and others against Greece 102
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)186 42 cases against Hungary 105
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)187 Daroczy against Hungary 106
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)188 Darvas against Hungary 108
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)189 Lajos Weller against Hungary 110
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)190 Block against Hungary 112
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)191 Társaság a Szabadságjogokért against Hungary 114
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)192 Károly Hegedűs against Hungary 116
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)193 Di Cecco against Italy 118
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)194 Guadagnigno against Italy and France 120
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)195 Claude Wagner against Luxembourg 123
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)196 Alliance Capital (Luxembourg) S.A. against Luxembourg 125
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)197 Henryk and Ryszard Urban against Poland 127
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)198 Nowinski against Poland 129
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)199 Gajewski against Poland 131
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)200 Frankowicz against Poland 133
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)201 Three cases against Portugal 136
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)202 11 cases against Romania 137
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)203 Ştefan against Romania 138
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)204 Begu against Romania 140
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)205 Bozgan against Romania 142
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)206 Three cases against Romania 144
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)207 Hirschhorn against Romania 145
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)208 Lupaş and others (No. 1) against Romania 148
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)209 Petrina against Romania 151
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)210 Adrian Constantin against Romania 153
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)211 Avram against Romania 155
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)212 9 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of
final court decisions
157

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)213 Postolache No. 2 and SC Marolux SRL and Jacobs against Romania 160
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)214 Valentin Dumitrescu against Romania 162
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)215 Geleri against Romania 164
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)216 Burghelea against Romania 167
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)217 AGVPS-Bacau against Romania 168
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)218 Forum Maritime S.A. against Romania 173
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)219 Sissanis and Rosengren against Romania 175
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)220 Zakova Malinova against the Slovak Republic 179
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)221 Stavebna spolochnost Tatry Poprad against the Slovak Republic 181
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)222 Segerstedt-Wiberg and others against Sweden 183
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)223 Erkuş against Turkey 186
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)224 Karataş and Yıldız against Turkey 188
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)225 Tavlı against Turkey 190
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)226 11 cases against Turkey 192
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)227 Subner against the United Kingdom 193
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)228 A.A against United Kingdom 195
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)229 Al Khawaja against United Kingdom 198
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)230 Hanif and Khan against United Kingdom 200
Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)232 Minshall against United Kingdom 204
Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)233 Sejdić and Finci against Bosnia and Herzegovina 206
Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)234 Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov against Ukraine and the Zhovner group of 389 cases against Ukraine (list of cases) concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions and the lack of an effective remedy in respect thereof 208

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1461
Houtman and Meeus against Belgium

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 22945/07, judgment of 17 March 2009, final on 17 June 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)237F);

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)237F);

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

HOUTMAN & MEEUS c. Belgique

(Requête no 22945/07, arrêt du 17 mars 2009, définitif le 17 juin 2009)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

L’affaire concerne l’internement de G. Houtman, contre son gré, dans une institution psychiatrique pendant plusieurs jours. Le 12 mai 1993, elle et son mari se rendirent aux urgences de l’hôpital universitaire Gasthuisberg à Louvain, où des calmants et des antipsychotiques lui furent administrés car celle-ci était dans un état de surexcitation, soupçonnant son mari d’adultère. Le lendemain, elle fut transférée, à l’initiative des médecins qui l’avaient examinée, à l’hôpital psychiatrique universitaire St. Jozef à Kortenberg. Le chef du service psychiatrique présuma que la requérante se soumettait librement à ce traitement. Toutefois, au moment de l’enregistrement, celle-ci indiqua qu’elle s’opposait à son internement. Elle prit contact le jour même avec son médecin traitant et lui demanda de la faire sortir de l’hôpital. Elle quitta, finalement, l’hôpital psychiatrique le 17 mai 1993, à la suite d’une intervention du parquet déclenchée par sa sœur et certains de ses amis.

Le 1er juillet 1993, les requérants introduisirent une action en responsabilité contre les médecins impliqués dans son internement et les hôpitaux psychiatriques concernés, estimant que la privation de liberté avait été illégale et demandant, par conséquent, une indemnisation du préjudice subi en raison de l’internement forcé. Les juridictions internes reconnurent que la requérante avait été placée à l’hôpital psychiatrique, sans que la procédure devant le juge de la paix, prévue par la loi du 26 juin 1990, soit engagée. Toutefois, elles refusèrent d’accorder une indemnisation, à défaut d’un lien de causalité entre ce non respect de la procédure interne et le dommage allégué. En novembre 2005, la Cour d’appel de Bruxelles releva que l’internement n’avait pas été le résultat d’une « faute » mais d’un « état de santé » et que les requérants n’avaient pas démontré que le dommage allégué avait été provoqué par la méconnaissance de la loi. En décembre 2006, la Cour de cassation rejeta le pourvoi formé par les intéressés.

En l’espèce, la Cour a jugé que les juridictions belges n’ont pas interprété et appliqué le droit interne dans l’esprit de l’article 5 § 1er de la Convention (privation de liberté), et conclut, dès lors, à une violation de son article 5 § 5 (droit à une réparation).

II. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable et mesures individuelles

a) Détails de la satisfaction équitable

Dommage matériel

Dommage moral

Frais & dépens

Total

-

3 000 euros

6 000 euros

9 000 euros

Payé le 15/07/2009

b) Mesures individuelles

Les autorités belges sont d’avis que cette affaire n’exige l’adoption d’aucune autre mesure individuelle que la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour à la requérante. En effet, celle-ci couvre suffisamment son préjudice.

III. Mesures générales

a) Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt du 17 mars 2009 a été publié sur le site Juridat de la Cour de cassation (www.http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be). En outre, il a fait l’objet d’une attention large dans la presse écrite ainsi que dans des revues indépendantes. Il a également été fait mention de cet arrêt dans une réponse à une question parlementaire (cf. question écrite nr. 5-2172 sur l’internement, 21 avril 2011).

b) Pas besoin d’adopter d’autres mesures générales

Dans son arrêt, la Cour juge qu’il y a eu manquement aux dispositions fondamentales de la loi du 26 juin 1990 relative à la protection de la personne des malades mentaux (§45). La Cour d’appel de Bruxelles l’a d’ailleurs reconnu, en des termes explicites, en soulignant que, même si les médecins estimèrent que l’internement serait de courte durée, la procédure légale aurait dû être suivie scrupuleusement. Or, sa conclusion, selon laquelle l’internement avait été opportun et justifié par l’état de la malade, vient à justifier une décision prise au mépris de la procédure légale. La Cour estime qu’en l’espèce, la requérante a subi une privation de liberté contraire à l’article 5 § 1er de la Convention, ce qui selon la jurisprudence de la Cour, crée un droit direct à réparation.

Selon les autorités belges, la violation constatée par la Cour dans cette affaire (le refus d’indemniser les requérants pour une privation de liberté illégale du fait de l’absence de respect de la procédure prévue en la matière) trouve sa source dans une application in concreto par les juridictions de la loi susmentionnée du 26 juin 1990, fortement liée aux circonstances de l’espèce. Ainsi, les autorités belges estiment que l’arrêt Houtman et Meeus du 17 mars 2009 n’exige l’adoption d’aucune mesure générale particulière.

IV. Conclusions

Au vu des informations transmises dans le présent Bilan d’action, les autorités belges estiment avoir répondu à toutes les exigences de l’arrêt Houtman & Meeus. En effet, il ne requière pas l’adoption de mesures particulières, ni individuelles ou générales. Dès lors, l’Etat belge demande au Comité des Ministres de bien vouloir clôturer l’affaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1472
Faniel against Belgium

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 11892/08, judgment of 1 March 2011, final on 1 June 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)828F);

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)828F);

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

      FANIEL c. Belgique

      (Requête n°11.892/08, arrêt du 1er mars 2011)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

Le requérant est le père d'une fille, mineure au moment des faits, sur la garde de laquelle il avait été statué par jugement du juge de paix de Huy du 26 octobre 1994. Il fut prévenu d'avoir, à plusieurs reprises, entre le 1er janvier 1999 et le 18 février 2001, omis de présenter l’enfant à sa mère. Le 24 mai 2002, le tribunal correctionnel de Huy condamna, par défaut, le requérant à une peine d'emprisonnement de six mois.

Le 6 juin 2002, un huissier de justice signifia le jugement au domicile du requérant. N'y ayant rencontré personne, il laissa à l'adresse du requérant un avis de présentation de l'arrêt. Le 24 juin 2002, le requérant se présenta au commissariat où, selon lui, l'officier de police qui lui remit le jugement lui aurait indiqué qu'il n'était pas possible d'introduire un recours contre un jugement par défaut.

Lorsque le requérant reçut l'invitation à se rendre en prison, il consulta un avocat qui fit opposition au jugement le 11 octobre 2002, soutenant que celle-ci était recevable malgré le non respect des délais légaux, dès lors qu'en ne prescrivant pas de notifier les possibilités et les modalités de recours, les textes légaux visant la signification des jugements en matière pénale violaient l'article 13 de la Convention, l'article 2 du Protocole no 7 et les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.

Le 20 décembre 2002, le tribunal correctionnel d'Huy déclara l'opposition irrecevable, au motif qu’elle n'avait pas été faite dans le délai prévu par l'article 203 §1er du Code d'instruction criminelle.

En l’espèce, la Cour rappelle l'arrêt Da Luz Domingues Ferreira c. Belgique du 24 mai 2007 qui est intervenu dans un contexte factuel différent mais qui posait le même problème, c’est-à-dire l'irrecevabilité de l'opposition à un jugement rendu par défaut pour non-respect des formalités et pour tardiveté. Dans cet arrêt, la Cour a fondé son constat de violation sur le fait que le requérant n'avait pas été informé, au moment de la signification de l'arrêt, des formalités et délais à respecter pour former opposition.

Or, dans le cas présent, le jugement de condamnation du requérant ne comportait pas d'indication des formalités à respecter pour former opposition.

La Cour relève que la Belgique a, ensuite, reconnu le besoin d'une telle information et a pris des mesures, comme en témoigne la circulaire du 18 juin 2008 « relative à la notification de ses droits à une personne condamnée par défaut détenue ou non au sein du Royaume ou à l'étranger », adoptée par le Collège des procureurs généraux près les cours d'appel le lendemain de l'arrêt Da Luz Domingues Ferreira c. Belgique précité.

Dès lors, la Cour juge que l'irrecevabilité pour tardiveté de l'opposition formée par le requérant contre le jugement le condamnant, alors qu'il n'a pas été informé des délais et modalités pour l'introduire, a porté atteinte à son droit d'accès à un tribunal, tel que garanti par l'article 6 §1er 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

-

3 000 euros

1.255 euros

4.255 euros

Payé le 08/07/2011

b) Mesures individuelles

Au terme de la procédure litigieuse, le requérant a été condamné à six mois de prison. En vertu des articles 442bis à 442octies du Code d’instruction criminelle, il a toutefois disposé de la possibilité de demander la réouverture de la procédure, suite à l’arrêt de la Cour européenne. En outre, le requérant soutenait avoir subi un dommage matériel du fait de la violation constatée par la Cour mais celle-ci a rejeté cette prétention. Elle a, en revanche, indemnisé le préjudice moral subi par le requérant.

Dans ces conditions, les autorités belges sont d’avis que l’arrêt n’exige l’adoption d’aucune autre mesure individuelle que la satisfaction équitable allouée par la Cour.

III. Mesures générales

a) Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt a été publié, le 9 août 2011, sur le site internet Juridat de la Cour de cassation (www.http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be).

b) Autres mesures

Comme susmentionné, à la suite de l'arrêt Da Luz Domingues Ferreira c. Belgique du 24 mai 2007, la Belgique a adopté une circulaire du 18 juin 2008 sur la notification de ses droits à une personne condamnée par défaut détenue ou non au sein du Royaume ou à l'étranger. Suite à cette circulaire, les parquets donnent instruction aux huissiers de justice, lors de la signification d’un jugement ou arrêt par défaut, de reprendre dans leur acte les formes et délais de l’opposition prévus aux articles 187 et 208 du Code d’instruction criminelle complétés par l’arrêté royal n°236 du 20/1/1936, si l’intéressé est détenu.

IV. Conclusions

Au vu des informations transmises, les autorités belges estiment avoir répondu aux exigences de l’arrêt Faniel c. Belgique. En effet, celui-ci ne requière pas l’adoption de mesures individuelles particulières, tandis que des mesures générales opportunes ont été adoptées pour prévenir toute violation similaire de la Convention. Dès lors, l’Etat belge demande au Comité des Ministres de bien vouloir clôturer la présente affaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1483
2 cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Karanović, Application No. 39462/03, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008

Sekerovic and Pasalic, Applications Nos. 5920/04 and 67396/09, judgment of 08/03/2011, final on 15/09/2011)

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)736E);

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)736E);

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.

Action report

Šekerovič and Pašalič v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (app. nos. 5920/04 and 67396/09),
judgment of 8 March 2011, final on 15 September 2011

Karanovič v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (app. no. 39462/03), judgment of 20 November 2007,
final on 20 February 2008

I Case description

In its judgment Šekerovič and Pašalič, the European Court of Human Rights (the "Court") found violations of several provisions of the Convention on the account of non-enforcement of the decisions of the Human Rights Chamber and the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ("BiH"). These courts found discrimination against the applicants in enjoyment of their pension rights.

The case Šekerovič and Pašalič v. Bosnia and Herzegovina is similar to Karanovič v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 39462/03, judgment 20 November 2007.

Given the large number of potential applicants, which represents a threat to the future effectiveness of the Convention machinery, in the Šekerovič judgment the Court ordered BiH to secure the amendment of the relevant legislation in order to render the applicants and others in that situation (namely those who were granted pensions in what is today the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina ("FBi H") before the war, who then moved to what is today the Republika Srpska ("RS") during the war, and who, for that reason only still received RS Fund pensions despite their return to the Federation after the war) eligible to apply, if they so whished, for FBiH Fund pensions (see paragraph 42).

II Just satisfaction

The national authorities have paid the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant Karanovič on 23 April 2008 and to the applicant Pašalič on 28 October 20 II.

The applicant Šekerovič did not submit any claim for just satisfaction (see paragraph 43. of the judgment).

III Individual measures

The applicant Karanovič has been transferred to the FBiH Pension Fund. He has realised his pension rights within this Fund since 21 February 2008.

On 11 November 2011, the applicant Pašalič withdrew her request for pension from the FBiH Pension Fund. She stated, in particular, that the pension she has been receiving from the RS Pension Fund was higher that the pension she would have received from the FBiH Pension Fund. Therefore, she clearly stated she was not interested to transfer her pension to the FBiI-I Pension Fund.

The applicant Šekerovič has been transferred to the FBiH Pension Fund. His pension has been paid by this Fund since I June 20 II.

IV General measures

a) Publication and dissemination

Both judgments have been translated and published on the web site of the Office of the Government Agent (see http://www.mhrr.gov.ba/ured_zastupnika/odluke/?id=170) and in the "Official Gazette of BiH", no. 25/08 and 7/1 2 in all three official languages.

The judgments have been also transmitted to the Council of Ministers of BiH, the Constitutional Court of Bill, RS and FBiH Governments, the FBiH Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Constitutional Courts of the Entities, Supreme Courts of the Entities and the RS and FBiH Pension Funds.

b) Legislative measures

The steps aimed at introducing the legislative amendments necessary to implement these judgments have been taken even before the judgment in the Šekerovič case became final.

In August 2011 the FBiH Ministry of Labour and Social Policy prepared the draft amendments to the Pension and Disability Insurance Law. These draft amendments provide that individuals who were granted pensions in what is today the FBiH before the war, who then moved to what is today the RS during the war, and who, for that reason only, still receive RS Fund pensions despite their return to the Federation after the war, are eligible to apply, if they so whish, for FBiH Fund pensions.

The Ministry forwarded these draft amendments to the Cantonal Assemblies for their consideration and opinion. On 28 December 2011 the Ministry also forwarded these draft amendments for approval to the FBiH Ministry of Justice, the FBiH Ministry of Finance and the FBiH authority in charge for legislation and compatibility check with the EU regulations.

The foregoing authorities granted their approval in respect of the draft amendments. Thereafter, on 24 January 2012, the FBiH Government approved these draft amendments and forwarded them to the FBiH Parliament for adoption as a matter of priority.

The FBiH Parliament adopted the Amendments to the Pension and Disability Insurance Law on 15 May 2012. The Amendments are published in the "Official Gazette of FBiH", no. 55/1 2 of 27 June 2012, and entered into force on 28 June 2012.

By amending the relevant legislation as stated above, the national authorities implemented the Court's judgments in the cases of Karanovič and Šekerovič and Pašalič and fully complied with the Court's order in Šekerovič and Pašalič to amend the relevant pension legislation.

V Conclusion

The Government Agent of BiH considers that Bosnia and Herzegovina has taken the necessary measures to prevent similar violations and has thus complied with its obligation under Article 46§ I. It is therefore proposed to the Committee of Ministers to close further examination of the cases Karanovič v. BiH and Šekerovič and Pašalič v. BiH.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1494
Kushoglu against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 48191/99, judgments of 10 May 2007, final on 10 August 2007 (merits) and 3 July 2008, final on 1 December 2008 (just satisfaction))

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 fact that through arbitrary decisions the domestic courts failed to assist the applicants in recovering the property they were forced to sell to the local municipality in 1989 (violation of 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 applicants 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)149

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

Kushoglu against Bulgaria

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the fact that through arbitrary decisions the domestic courts failed to assist the applicants in recovering property they were forced to sell to the local municipality in 1989, when the communist regime forced tens of thousands of ethnic Turks, among them the applicants, to emigrate (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Soon after acquired it the municipality sold the property in question, a house in the town of Dulovo, to third parties. In 1995 the Supreme Court declared with final effect that the transaction of 1989 between the applicants and the municipality had been null and void due to a procedural shortcoming. However, in 1996 the domestic courts declared that the third parties had validly acquired the house on the basis of their contract with the municipality. The European Court noted that those latter findings of the national courts were “vague to the point of being arbitrary” (§ 53), as they went manifestly contrary the relevant provisions of the Property Act and the practice of Bulgarian courts, which stipulated that when a property sale was found to be null and void it was deemed to be so ab initio, entailing as a consequence that subsequent transactions cannot validly convey title to the property.

Consequently the European Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ rights did not have a clear basis in domestic law and did not meet the Convention requirement of lawfulness.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

9 000 EUR

2 000 EUR

100 EUR

11 100 EUR

Paid on 20/12/2008

b) Individual measures

In its just satisfaction judgment the Court noted that the case did not concern illegal dispossession of property by the State and that the State's duty to erase the consequences of the violation did not include any obligation to return the property at issue to the applicants. The Court considered that payment of a sum of money to the applicants would provide redress for the pecuniary damage suffered by them and awarded them just satisfaction in that respect. It also awarded them non-pecuniary damage.

In these circumstances, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The judgments of the European Court on the merits of the case and on just satisfaction have been translated into Bulgarian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice - http://www.justice.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx

The government considered that the violation in the present case constituted an isolated incident confined within the specific circumstances of the case, which did not reveal the existence of any repeated or systemic problem. The Government indicated in addition that the issue at stake in this case concerned the application of the general rule of civil law and was not related to the legislation concerning the restitution of property sold during the forced departure of the Bulgarian Turks in 1989 (the Law on Restitution of Real Property of Bulgarian Citizens of Turkish Origin Who Sought to Travel to Turkey or to Other Countries in the Period May-September 1989 provides for the restitution, under certain conditions, of property sold or transferred otherwise during this period).

Consequently, the government considered that no further general measures were necessary for the execution of the judgments in this case.

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1505
Bulinvar OD and Hrusanov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 66455/01, judgment of 12 April 2007, final on 12 July 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)914E);

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)914E);

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 Bulinvar OOD and Hrusanov v. Bulgaria (no 66455/01)

Action report on the execution of the judgment of the European Court of human rights

delivered on 12/4/2007

This case concerns the infringement of the applicant company's right of access to a court to challenge the refusal by a state commission to authorise the use of its new building (violation of Article 6§1). The Supreme Administrative Court has found that it was not competent to examine an administrative decision on the merits. The European Court did not find a violation in respect of the second applicant, Mr. Hrusanov.

1. Individual measures:

An amount of just satisfaction has not been awarded by the Court.

The applicant company has availed itself of the legislative framework and has submitted a request in order to initiate the revocation of the judgment violating its right to access to a court.

Following its request, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court was quashed on the grounds of art. 239§6 of Code of Administrative Procedure of 2006 and the judicial proceedings were reopened. In the new proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the lower court’s decision which is in favour of the applicant company.

Therefore, the government considers that the applicant’s company interests are fully protected and that no further individual measures seem necessary.

2. General measures

The government is of the opinion that the case under supervision of the Committee of Ministers constitutes an isolated infringement of the right to access to a court in the field of urban development. The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court criticised by the European Court is not part of a constant jurisprudence in this respect and has been quashed after the reopening of the proceedings.

Moreover, the legal framework applicable at the relevant time has been repealed and replaced by new legislation in the area of urban development. New legislation has also been adopted in the area of administrative procedure, namely the Code of Administrative Procedure of 2006.

A translation has been prepared and the judgment has been published on the web site of the Ministry of justice www.justice.government.bg.

3. Conclusions

In conclusion the government considers that the measures adopted have remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that Bulgaria have complied with its obligation under 46 §1 of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1516
Svetoslav Hristov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 36794/03, judgment of 13 January 2011, final on 13 April 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)923E);

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)923E);

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

Case of Svetoslav Hristov v. Bulgaria, application no. 36794/03, judgment of 13

January 2011, final on 13 April 2011

The case concerns several violations of Article 5 of the Convention, related to detention of the applicant for six days in 2003:

1) violation of Article 5 § 1(c) due to a breach of the principle of legal certainty as

domestic law did not prohibit explicitly two consecutive periods of prosecutor-ordered detention for up to three days each on the basis of two separate provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974;

2) violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge (Article 5 § 3) because of

the accumulation of the two consecutive periods of three-day detention mentioned above before the applicant was brought before a judge;

3) violation of Article 5 § 4 because of the lack of a possibility of judicial control of the lawfulness of prosecutor-ordered detention;

4) violation of Article 5 § 5 because of the unavailability in domestic law of an enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5.

1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

The applicant has been released on bail on 31 October 2003 (§ 13 of the judgment). The European Court awarded him EUR 4,000 in just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, plus costs and expenses. The Government paid these amounts on

01/06/2011 and is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violations of the applicant’s rights.

2) GENERAL MEASURES

Violations of Article 5 §§ 1(c) and 3: These violations resulted from the application of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974, which has subsequently been superseded by new legislation. The new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 2006, provides for prosecutor-ordered detention only where it is necessary to ensure an accused’s appearance before the court deciding on his detention on remand (see Article 64 § 2). Such detention cannot last for more than 72 hours.

The Government is thus of the view that the specific problem giving rise to the violations of Article 5 §§ 1(c) and 3 in the case, namely the existence of two separate provisions on prosecutor-ordered detention and the possibility of accumulating periods of detention under both of them, has been solved.

Violations of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5: The unavailability of judicial review of prosecutor- ordered detention under Bulgarian law is being examined by the Committee of Ministers in the Kandzhov group (application no. 68294/01). The lack of any enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 is being examined in the Yankov group (application no. 39084/97).

In view of the considerations above, namely that some of the deficiencies identified by the European Court have been solved and the remaining ones are being examined in other groups of cases, the Government is of the view that the present case can be closed.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1527
Nedelcho Popov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 61360/00, judgment of 22 November 2007, final on 22 February 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(2012)924E);

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)924E);

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

Case of Nedelcho Popov v. Bulgaria, application no. 61360/00,

judgment of 22 November 2007, final on 22 February 2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to access to a court (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) as a result of the operation of a legal provision excluding from judicial review work-related disputes concerning certain categories of employees such as the applicant, who had been holding the post of “Chief Adviser” at the Council of Ministers. The applicant was dismissed on 30 July 1997 and on the basis of the above-mentioned provision his ensuing action for unfair dismissal was declared inadmissible.

1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

- The European Court did not award pecuniary damage to the applicant, finding that his claim for compensation in respect of lost income due to the dismissal was speculative as it had not been established that had he had access to a court his claim would have been successful. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, which the Government paid on 10 May 2008.

- As the applicant’s claim for unfair dismissal was not examined by means of a final court judgment, it was not open for him to request re-opening of the judicial proceedings following the European Court’s judgment.

The Government does not consider that any further individual measures are necessary or possible in the case. There is no opportunity to re-open the domestic judicial proceedings and the applicant has been awarded non-pecuniary damage. At the same time the Government points out that the applicant was a highly qualified expert, his tasks as “Chief Adviser” at the Council of Ministers having included providing expert opinion on draft legislation and involvement in the organisation of national and local elections (§ 7 of the judgment), and thus following his dismissal he was possibly in a position to find appropriate employment, thus not suffering serious adverse consequences. It should be noted also that the applicant did not submit any claim before the Committee of Ministers concerning the individual measures in this case.

In the light of all these circumstances the Government believes that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violation found by the European Court.

2) GENERAL MEASURES

- The violation of the applicant’s right to access to a court in the case resulted from a provision of the Labour Code, namely Article 360 § 2 (2)(a), which was subsequently declared by the Constitutional Court to be contrary to the Bulgarian Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention (Constitutional Court judgment No. 11 of 30 April 1998, see § 20 of the European Court’s judgment). In 2001 the provision was repealed.

- The Court’s judgment has been translated into Bulgarian and published on the web site of the Ministry of Justice: (http://www.mjeli.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx).

The Government considers that no further general measures are necessary as there exists no likelihood of future similar violations.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1538
Mincheva against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 21558/03, judgment of 02/09/2010, final on 02/12/2010)

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 violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)916E);

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)916E);

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

Case Mincheva v. Bulgaria, Application No 21558/03

Judgment of 02 September 2010, Final on 02 December 2010

1. Convention violation found

The case relates to the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning the custody of the applicant's son (violation of Art. 6 § 1) and lack of effective remedy in this respect (violation of Art. 13). It concerns also the violation of the applicant's right to respect for her family life due to the authorities' failure to take the necessary practical measures to enforce the applicant's contact rights (between 1997 and 2003) which had been granted to her by a final judicial decision (violation of Art. 8).

2. Individual measures

The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicant’s account on 02.03.2011.

After 2003 the violation of the applicant’s right to family life apparently ceased as the applicant established a regular contact with her son (as noted in § 41 of the Court’s judgment). In any event the boy is already of age (he was born in 1990) so no measures on the part of the authorities concerning the contacts with his mother are any longer required.

No further individual measures are necessary for execution of the judgment.

3. General measures

3.1 Violation of Article 8

a) legislative measures

The violation of Article 8 resulted from the relevant legislation in force at the time (Code of Civil Procedure of 1952), which did not allow the body responsible for the execution of contact rights to take practical measures in order to overcome the refusal of one of the parents to allow the other parent to meet the child. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 allowed only the imposition of fines.

The legislation criticized in the European Court’s judgment has been repealed and replaced by a new Code of Civil Procedure which entered into force in 2008 and a new Family Code which entered into force in 2009.

The current domestic legal framework concerning execution of contact rights is provided in Articles 323, 527 and 528 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as in Article 59 of the Family Code and Article 23 (6) of the Law for the Protection of the Child.

According to Article 323 §1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, parties in divorce proceedings can request temporary measures regarding the care of the children and their maintenance. The request for temporary measures shall be examined either immediately or within two weeks after the hearing at which it has been submitted. The court’s ruling is not subject to appeal, but it can be amended by the same court.

According to Article 528 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, the body responsible for the execution of a judgment concerning child custody or contact rights can seek the assistance of the police and the social services, in addition to imposing fines on the non-complying party.

According to Article 59, §§ 8 and 9 of the Family Code, the court in divorce proceedings can also take measures aimed at the protection of the child, such as the obligation for a parent to meet a child in the presence of the other parent or a third person or the obligation to meet the child at a particular place. Such measures can be taken also after the end of the divorce proceedings.

Finally, under Article 23 (6) of the Child Protection Act, the social services can take measures aimed at facilitating the contacts between children and parents.

b) publication and dissemination of the judgment

In addition to the above – mentioned legislative measures, a translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.government.bg/

The translation of the judgment will be sent to the competent courts (first instance and Courts of appeal) through a circular letter drawing their attention on the main conclusions of the ECHR’s judgment.

3.2. Violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13

The remaining violations – of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, concerning the length of the civil proceedings to which the applicant was a party and the lack of effective remedies in that regard, are similar to the ones examined in the Djangozov group of cases.

In their circular letter, the Bulgarian authorities will draw the domestic courts’ attention to the necessity to conduct with particular diligence and promptness proceedings which concern child custody or contact rights, as required by the European Court’s case-law.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion the government considers that the general measures will prevent new similar violations and that Bulgaria have complied with its obligation under 46 §1 of the Convention. The government therefore looks forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)1549
Mihalkov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 67719/01, judgment of 10 April 2008, final on 10 July 2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)911F);

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)911F);

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

AFFAIRE MIHALKOV c. BULGARIE

(Requête N 67719/01), Arrêt du 10 avril 2008, Définitif le 10 juillet 2008

I. Violations de la Convention

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a constaté des violations de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention.

II. Description de l’affaire

Cette affaire concerne principalement l’absence d'impartialité objective du tribunal de la ville de Sofia appelé à se prononcer sur la demande d'indemnisation du requérant introduite en vertu de la loi sur la responsabilité de l’Etat et des municipalités pour des dommages causés aux particuliers (violation de l'article 6§1). La demande en réparation du requérant portait sur une condamnation illégale qui lui avait été imposée auparavant par le même tribunal de la ville de Sofia et que l’intéressé avait purgée pendant onze mois.

La Cour européenne a noté que le rattachement professionnel des juges du tribunal de la ville de Sofia à l'une des parties à la procédure d'indemnisation étaient suffisant pour susciter la préoccupation légitime du requérant au sujet de l'impartialité de ces juges. Elle a aussi relevé que l'indemnité qui allait être accordée au requérant en cas de succès devait être payée du budget du même tribunal de la ville de Sofia, ce qui était de nature à aggraver encore les préoccupations du requérant. Enfin, la Cour européenne a estimé que les juridictions de degré supérieur n'avaient pas remédié à cette absence d’indépendance et d’impartialité du tribunal de la ville de Sofia.

L'affaire porte aussi sur une violation du droit d'accès du requérant à un tribunal, du fait qu’il a été condamné au paiement de frais de justice plus élevés que l'indemnisation de 168 euros qui lui a été accordée pour sa condamnation illégale (violation de l'article 6§1).

Enfin, l’affaire concerne la durée excessive de la procédure judiciaire d'indemnisation (violation de l'article 6§1).

La procédure a pris fin en 2000.

III : Les mesures individuelles

La République de Bulgarie a versé au requérant la somme de 4 000 EUR (quatre mille euros) pour dommage moral, convertie en leva bulgares, conformément au dispositif de l’arrêt de la Cour. Le versement de cette somme a été fait dans le délai imparti. Le requérant n’a pas demandé une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage matériel devant la Cour européenne.

Dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

IV: Les mesures générales

1. violation du droit à ce que sa cause soit examinée par un tribunal indépendant et impartial. De l’avis du gouvernement, la violation constatée dans cette affaire est un cas isolé d’application incorrecte de la législation interne par un tribunal saisi du fond d’une procédure civile.

A l’époque des faits, l’article 12 du Code de procédure civile de 1952 prévoyait qu’un juge devait se récuser, entre autres, dans les cas où celui-ci avait un intérêt personnel au litige ou s’il existait, entre lui et l’une des parties, des liens de nature à mettre en doute son impartialité. Ces dispositions ont été reprises à l’identique par l’article 22 du nouveau Code de procédure civile de 2008.

Les dispositions citées ci-dessus constituent une base suffisante pour la récusation de juges qui siègent dans les tribunaux de première et deuxième instance, si les tribunaux en question sont parties à une procédure civile, comme était le cas de l’espèce. Il convient de rappeler à cet égard que dans la présente affaire tous les juges du tribunal de district de Sofia, qui était l’un des défendeurs dans la procédure civile engagée par le requérant, se sont récusés sur la base de l’Article 12 du Code de procédure civile de

1952 (cf. § 11 de l’arrêt).

2. violation du droit d’accès à un tribunal en raison de l’obligation de payer des taxes judiciaire d’un montant excessif.

La présente violation est similaire aux violations constatées dans les affaires Stankov (no. 68490/01) et Tzvyatkov (no. 20594/02), closes par la résolution finale CM/ResDH(2011)8.

3. violation du droit à ce que la cause du requérant soit entendue dans un délai raisonnable.

La question de la durée excessive des procédures civiles est examinée dans le groupe Djangozov c. Bulgarie.

4. réintroduction de la possibilité de demander la réouverture d’une procédure civile à la suite d’un arrêt de la Cour européenne

Par une modification du Code de procédure civile entrée en vigueur en juin 2009, le législateur bulgare a introduit à nouveau la possibilité de demander la réouverture d’une procédure civile devant la Cour suprême de cassation dans les cas où la Cour européenne a constaté une violation des droits garantis par la Convention.

Eu égard aux informations ci-dessus, le gouvernement estime qu’il n’est pas nécessaire d’entreprendre d’autres mesures générales et qu’il est possible d’envisager la clôture de la surveillance de l’exécution de cette affaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)15510
Ivanova against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 52435/99, judgment of 12 April 2007, final on 12 July 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)919E);

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)919E);

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

Case of Ivanova v. Bulgaria, application no. 52435/99,

judgment of 12 April 2007, final on 12 July 2007

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of religion on account of her dismissal in December 1995 from a state-owned school at which her functions did not include teaching (violation of Article 9). The European Court considered that whilst her employment had been ended, on the face of it, in conformity with the law, by modifying the qualifications attached to the post, the dismissal had nonetheless been motivated by religious considerations, being part of a campaign against the activities of a religious organisation, “Word of Life”, of which the applicant was an adherent.

INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

- The European Court awarded pecuniary damage to the applicant, granting in totality her claim to be compensated for having remained without work for a certain period of time. It also made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Those sums were paid by the Government on 11 October 2007.

- At the time of entry into force of the European Court’s judgment, it was possible for the applicant to seek the re-opening of the civil proceedings for unfair dismissal which she had brought (Article 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in force until 1 March 2008). She did not avail herself of that possibility.

The Government considers that no further individual measures are necessary in the case to erase the consequences of the violation.

GENERAL MEASURES

- Freedom of religion in Bulgaria is guaranteed by the Constitution of 1991 (Articles 13 and 37) and the Religious Denominations Act of 2002. Protection against discrimination is provided for by the Constitution (Articles 6 and 38) and in particular by the Protection Against Discrimination Act of 2003, which, in the context of the exercise of the right to labour, expressly forbids any dismissal based on religious convictions (sections 4 and 21). The Protection Against Discrimination Act alleviates the burden of proof for plaintiffs wishing to show discrimination. It creates a Commission for Protection Against Discrimination, which examines individual complaints. Anyone alleging discrimination may also directly address the courts. There exists already abundant practice of the courts in the application of the Act. In addition, the Labour Code (Article 8 § 3) prohibits discrimination in the exercise of labour rights based, inter alia, on religion.

- The Court’s judgment in the present case has been translated into Bulgarian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.mjeli.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx). It has also been disseminated amongst the relevant State bodies.

The Government is of the view that the legislation cited above, most notably the Protection Against Discrimination Act of 2003, which was adopted and entered into force after the events in the case at hand took place, affords sufficient protection of the right not to be dismissed on the basis of one’s religious convictions and thus makes it unlikely that violations similar to the one in Mrs Ivanova’s case will occur in the future. Although the present case appears to be an isolated one, where the courts examining Mrs Ivanova’s claim for unfair dismissal failed to duly take into account her allegations of discrimination based on her religion, it was considered important to publish and disseminate the Court’s judgment, which could help preventing the national courts’ taking a similar approach in the future. Lastly, the Government notes that the negative attitude towards new “sects”, prevalent in Bulgaria in the 1990s, has since then significantly attenuated.

The Government is thus of the view that no further general measures are necessary in the case.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)15611
Ignatov, Gochev and Nalbantski against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 50/02, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

Application No. 34383/03, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

Application No. 30943/04, judgment of 10/02/2011, final on 10/05/2011)

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)912E);

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)912E);

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.

Action report

3 cases against Bulgaria concerning freedom of movement

Ignatov, application no. 50/02, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

Gochev, application no. 34383/03, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/10/2010

Nalbantski, application no. 30943/04, judgment of 10/02/2011, final on 10/05/2011

1) DESCRIPTION OF THE CASES

The three cases above concern restrictions of the applicants’ freedom to leave the territory of Bulgaria imposed on different legal grounds.

In the cases of Ignatov and Gochev the applicants were barred from leaving the country on the ground that they had failed to pay debts towards private persons.

In the case of Ignatov the impugned measure was in force from 1999 to 2001 and was maintained during that period even though the applicant’s debt had been settled and the travel ban had apparently lost its justification. In the case of Gochev the ban to leave the country was in force from 2001 to 2008. It had been imposed automatically and without an individual evaluation of the applicant’s situation and ability to pay, and had not been subject to regular reassessment.

In both cases the European Court found violations of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) due to the authorities’ failure to ensure that any interference with an individual's right to leave his or her country is, from the outset and throughout its duration, justified and proportionate in the light of the circumstances. In the case of Ignatov the Court found in addition a violation of Article 13 (right to effective remedy), noting, in particular, that the applicant had not been able to challenge the measure taken against him as he had never been duly informed of it.

The case of Nalbantski concerns an automatic ban on the applicant’s leaving the country on the ground that he had a criminal conviction and had not yet been rehabilitated. The ban was imposed in 2004 and remained in force until an unspecified date, but not later than 2010 when legislative amendments put an end to the situation (see below). The European Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 because the domestic authorities had not analyzed the individual situation of the applicant and had not provided sufficient justification for the measure. It held that the mere fact that an individual has been criminally convicted and has not yet been rehabilitated cannot justify the imposition of restrictions on his or her freedom to leave his or her country.

In addition, in this case the Court found violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13, considering that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been excessive and that he had had no effective remedies in that regard.

2) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

In all cases the travel bans have been lifted. The criminal proceedings in the case of

Nalbantski ended in 2004.

The European Court awarded the applicants non-pecuniary damage for the suffering and distress they experienced. The Government has paid the sums awarded.

The Government thus considers that no further individual measures are necessary in the case.

3) GENERAL MEASURES

As concerns the general measures in these cases, the Government points out to the following developments:

a) the cases of Ignatov and Gochev

In these cases the travel bans were based on the International Passports Act, now repealed, and after that on the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act of 1998. At the time, the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act provided that the Ministry of the Interior could impose a prohibition on leaving the country on any individual who had debts established by judicial means, exceeding BGN 5,000, towards other physical or legal persons. In 2009 that provision (namely, section 75(6) of the Act) was amended to provide that the Ministry of the Interior was obliged to impose a prohibition on leaving the country on any individual who owed “substantial amounts” to other physical or legal persons.

In 2011 the Ombudsman challenged the provision of section 75(6) of the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act before the Constitutional Court, which, in a judgment of 31/03/2011, declared that provision unconstitutional. It found that the provision pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights of others and of constitutional principles, but was phrased in a manner which was too wide, as it failed to distinguish between debtors who had acted in bad faith and could be influenced by such a measure and bona fide debtors. In the latter case a travel ban would only be of a punitive character and could even hamper the collection of the debt. In addition, the Constitutional Court referred to the provision of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and to the Gochev judgment discussed here.

Under Bulgarian law once the Constitutional Court has declared a legal provision unconstitutional, it is not to be applied anymore. Thus, there is currently no legal ground for imposing measures such as the ones in the Ignatov and Gochev cases.

b) the case of Nalbantski

In that case the travel ban was based on section 76(2) of the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act, which, at the time, provided that a person who had been convicted of a willful offence and had not been rehabilitated could be barred from leaving the country and his international passport could be taken away. On 01/10/2009 that provision was repealed as it was considered to run counter to regulations of the European Union. A transitional provision which entered into force on 10/04/2010 specified that within three months of its entry into force all existing measures previously imposed under section 76(2) would cease to have effect.

Thus, the Government is of the view that the reason for the violation found by the Court in the present case has been removed and that no future similar violations are possible.

As to the violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 6 § 1 and 13, concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him, the Government notes that its efforts to resolve these problems are being examined by the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the group of Kitov and the pilot judgment in the Dimitrov and Hamanov case and that the present case raises no separate issues.

c) Conclusion

On the basis of the considerations above the Government is of the view that no further general measures are necessary in these cases.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)15712
Hovanesian against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 31814/03, judgment of 21 December 2010, final on 21 March 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)920E);

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)920E);

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

Case of Hovanesian v. Bulgaria, application no. 31814/03,

judgment of 21 December 2010, final on 21 March 2011

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to have the free assistance of an interpreter on account of having been ordered by the domestic courts to reimburse interpreter fees incurred in criminal proceedings against him which started in 1999 (violation of Article 6 § 3(e)).

1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

Under Article 41 of the Convention, the European Court awarded the applicant the amounts he had paid for interpreter fees in the domestic proceedings, plus costs and expenses. The Government has paid these sums on 21/12/2011. On the other hand, the Court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient satisfaction in respect of the moral damages suffered.

The Government is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violation of the applicant’s rights.

2) GENERAL MEASURES

The violation in the present case occurred as a result of the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974, which has subsequently been superseded by a new Code. The European Court noted also that there had been certain incoherence in the manner in which the Supreme Court of Cassation had applied the relevant domestic provisions (§ 50 of the judgment).

The new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 2006, expressly exempts convicted person from any interpreter fees incurred during the criminal proceedings (see Article 189 § 2). The domestic courts apply this provision in line with the requirements of the Convention.

The Government is of the view that the problem giving rise to the present violation has been solved and that there is no need of further general measures.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)15813
Borisova against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 56891/00, judgment of 21/12/2006, final on 21 mars 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 violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)921E);

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)921E);

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

Case of Borisova v. Bulgaria, application no. 56891/00, judgment of

21 December 2006, final on 21 March 2007

The present case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b) and (d) taken together, in the context of proceedings under the Degree on Combating Minor Hooliganism in 1999, as a result of which the applicant was sentenced to a 5-day arrest. The Court based its finding of a violation on the following considerations:

- The applicant had not been promptly and in detail informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her and had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence. The applicant was arrested in the morning of 08/09/1999, after allegedly having hit a police officer, and brought to a court after about two hours, which she spent either in transit to the court or detained in a cell at the police station. The applicant was not given an opportunity to contact a lawyer or a relative prior to the start of the proceedings. The court hearing lasted about 20 minutes and the judgment given at its close was not subject to appeal. In addition, the applicant claimed that she had been unaware of the upcoming proceedings against her and had only been informed of the accusations just before being presented for trial.

- The applicant could not obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on her behalf, even though she stated on several occasions during the court hearing that she wished to call witnesses. In fact, only witnesses for the prosecution were heard, which, in the European Court’s view, gave the prosecution an unfair advantage.

1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

- The European Court awarded to the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unfair proceedings against her which had resulted in a 5-day detention. The Government paid the sum on 19 September 2007 (the applicant stated that she would not seek interest).

- The applicant has served the 5-day sentence and has been released. The conviction has not been entered into her criminal record (§ 26 of the judgment).

The Government is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violation of the applicant’s rights.

2) GENERAL MEASURES

The Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism was adopted in 1963 and amended on numerous subsequent occasions. It covers minor offences of hooliganism which are punishable with an administrative sanction of up to fifteen days’ detention at a police station or a fine. The procedure is expeditious: the accusations are to be filed with the respective court within 24 hours following the discovery of the offence and the court is to decide in another 24 hours. The European Court has noted that the use of such expeditious procedures is not in itself contrary to Article 6, as long as the necessary safeguards and guarantees have been provided for (§ 40 of the judgment).

The Bulgarian Government is of the view that after the latest amendments of November 2011 the Decree provides for those safeguards and guarantees. Most importantly, it is now stipulated that the Administrative Offences and Punishments Act is to be applied to proceedings under the Decree on a subsidiary basis. That Act, which, on its turn, refers on a subsidiary basis to the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for all the necessary guarantees of fair trial in proceedings concerning administrative offences, such as the rights to effective defence, to legal assistance, to present evidence and to equality of arms. The Government considers that the expeditious character of the proceedings under the Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism is not in principle incompatible with these guarantees.

In addition, it is now provided that first-instance decisions under the Decree can be appealed against before the respective regional court (this was not previously the case – see § 25 of the judgment), which is an additional assurance against unfairness and provides aggrieved parties with a further chance to prepare and present their case.

The Government is of the view that the legislative amendments described above are sufficient to ensure that violations similar to the ones in the case will not occur in the future. No further general measures are thus necessary.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)15914
Velted-98 AD against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No.15239/02, judgment of 11 December 2008, final on 11 March 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)909E);

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)909E);

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

Case Velted-98 AD v. Bulgaria

Application No 15239/02, Judgment of 11/12/2008, Final on 11 /03/2009

1. Convention violation found

The case concerns the unfairness of administrative proceedings brought by the applicant company seeking revocation of a ministerial decree relating to the privatisation of a public company for which it had unsuccessfully submitted a bid. The Court held that there is a breach of Article 6§1of the Convention.

The European Court observed that in its judgment of 19/10/2001 the five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to examine an issue qualified as substantial at first instance by the three-member panel of the same court and on which the parties had exhaustively commented.

2. Individual measures

The Republic of Bulgaria has paid to the applicant company on 12.05.2010 the amount of 2000 (two thousand) euros for pecuniary damages and 700 (seven hundred) euros for costs and expenses, converted into Bulgarian levs, according to the operative part of the judgment.

In 2009 the applicant filed an application for the annulment of a final judgment before the Supreme Administrative Court. Administrative proceedings have been initiated before a seven-member panel, but they were discontinued due to the withdrawal of the annulment request by the applicant.

In these circumstances, no further individual measures seem to be necessary.

3. General measures

The government is of the opinion that the violation found by the European Court stems from the omission of the Supreme Administrative Court to examine all the relevant questions in this particular case. Therefore, this violation can be considered as an isolated one.

a) publication and dissemination of the judgment

The translation of the judgment is available on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.government.bg/

The translation of the judgment was sent to the Supreme Administrative Court drawing their attention on the main conclusions of the ECHR’s judgment.

b) No other general measures, such as legislative amendments, seem to be necessary for the execution of the judgment.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16015
Simeonov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 30122/03, judgment of 28 January 2010, final on 28 April 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)910F);

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)910F);

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.

LE BILAN D’ACTION AFFAIRE SIMEONOV c. BULGARIE

(Requête .N 30122/03)

Arrêt du 28 janvier 2010

Définitif le 28 avril 2010

I: Les violations de la Convention constatées par la Cour Européenne

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a conclu à la violation de l’article 8 de la Convention.

II. Description de l’affaire:

Cette affaire concerne l’ingérence illégale dans l’exercice par le requérant de son droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale au sens de l’article 8 de la Convention. Le requérant alléguait que l’interdiction de recevoir des visites de son épouse et l’impossibilité de rencontrer sa fille mineure pendant sa détention entre 2003 et 2006 n’étaient pas compatibles avec l’article 8 de la Convention et qu’en conséquence son droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale avait été violé. Dans la décision du 31 mars 2006 le juge rapporteur du tribunal régional a constaté que les mesures imposées au requérant n’étaient pas conformes à la législation interne. A la lumière de ce constat, la Cour européenne a considéré que la première condition pour la régularité de l’interdiction dénoncée par le requérant n’était pas remplie en l’espèce, parce que la mesure dénoncée n’avait pas été “prévue par la loi” et qu’il y a donc eu violation de l’article 8 de la Convention.

L’affaire concerne la période entre 2003 et 2006.

III. Les mesures individuelles

La République de Bulgarie a versé au requérant les sommes indiquées pour dommage moral et pour frais et dépens, conformément au dispositif de l’arrêt rendu par la Cour.

Le versement des sommes indiquées a été fait le 27 juillet 2011.

Comme indiqué ci-dessus, la violation des droits du requérant a cessé en 2006 quand l’interdiction pour lui de recevoir des visites de son épouse a été levée.

Il n’est pas nécessaire d’entreprendre d’autres mesures individuelles pour l’exécution de l’arrêt.

IV. Les mesures générales

Il convient de souligner que dans cette affaire la violation de l’article 8 de la Convention est le résultat de la violation de la législation interne pertinente. Telle était aussi la conclusion de la Cour Européenne (cf. § 69 de l’arrêt). La législation actuelle garantit le droit des détenus de recevoir les visites et les appels de leur conjoint et enfants (cf. article 256, alinéa 3 de la loi sur l’exécution des peines et la détention provisoire). La violation de l’espèce étant de toute évidence un cas isolé, il n’est pas nécessaire d’entreprendre des mesures générales particulières.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16116
Kostadin Mihaylov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 17868/07, judgment of 27 March 2008, final on 27 June 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(2012)913F);

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)913F);

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 AFFAIRE MIHAYLOV c. BULGARIE (Requête N 17868/07)

I: Violations de la Convention

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a constaté une violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la

Convention.

II. Description de l’affaire:

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit du requérant d'accès à un tribunal en raison du rejet de son action dû aux positions divergentes adoptées par les tribunaux internes sur la question de savoir quelle institution était le défendeur approprié pour cette action (violation de l’article 6 § 1). Le requérant avait demandé des dommages moraux en raison de la détermination erronée par l’administration de la date à partir de laquelle il pouvait prétendre à certains paiements sociaux liés à son invalidité.

L’affaire concerne la période entre 2005 et 2007.

III : Les mesures individuelles

La République de Bulgarie a versé au requérant les sommes suivantes, converties en leva bulgares: la somme de 3 000 EUR (trois mille euros) pour dommage moral et la somme de 1 000 EUR (mille euros) pour frais et dépens, conformément au dispositif de l’arrêt de la Cour. Le versement des sommes a été fait dans le délai indiqué.

En outre, la Cour européenne a indiqué dans son arrêt que dans des affaires dans lesquelles elle a constaté une violation du droit d’accès à un tribunal, la réouverture de la procédure interne est, en règle générale, la forme de réparation la plus appropriée. La demande du requérant dans ce sens a été rejetée par la Cour suprême de cassation par décision du 19 novembre 2008 confirmée par une autre formation de la haute juridiction le 17 février 2009 à cause de l’absence d’une telle possibilité à l’époque de l’introduction et de l’examen de sa demande.

Toutefois, le gouvernement estime que, dans le cas particulier de l’espèce, cette impossibilité d’obtenir la réouverture n’a pas d’incidence significative sur la situation individuelle du requérant pour les raisons exposées ci-dessous.

Le gouvernement rappelle à cet égard que la procédure interne litigieuse concernait uniquement des dommages moraux découlant d’une décision administrative déjà annulée et que le montant de ces dommages avaient été évalués à 250 euros environ par le tribunal de première instance. Vu le faible montant de cette somme et dans la mesure où la Cour européenne a allouée des dommages moraux à la hauteur de 3 000 euros au titre de la satisfaction équitable, il ne semble pas qu’à ce jour il persiste des conséquences graves pour le requérant découlant de la violation constatée.

Par ailleurs, le législateur bulgare a adopté une modification du Code de procédure civile, entrée en vigueur en juin 2009, qui prévoit la possibilité de demander la réouverture d’une procédure civile suite à un arrêt de la Cour européenne, ce qui permettra d’éviter des situations similaires à l’avenir.

Dans les circonstances particulières de cette affaire, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

IV: Les mesures générales

La violation du droit du requérant d’accès à un tribunal trouve son origine dans les actions des tribunaux bulgares qui ont rendu deux jugements qui s’excluent mutuellement et qui ont ainsi privé le requérant de la possibilité de faire examiner sa demande d’indemnisation pour des dommages moraux. Les autorités estiment que cette affaire est un cas isolé.

Les autorités estiment qu’aucune autre mesure générale n’est nécessaire et que le Comité des Ministres pourrait envisager la clôture de l’examen de cette affaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16217
Bevacqua against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 71127/01, judgment of 12 June 2008, final on 12 September 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(2012)922E);

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)922E);

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

Case of Bevacqua and S v. Bulgaria, application no. 71127/01, judgment of

12 June 2008, final on 12 September 2008

The applicants in this case are mother and son. The case concerns the authorities’ failure to take appropriate action in the context of the first applicant’s divorce proceedings in 2000-2002, and in particular their failure to decide rapidly on interim custody measures concerning the second applicant, a minor at the time, and to impose sanctions or otherwise react adequately to the father’s unlawful and violent behaviour. The European Court concluded that the authorities had failed to ensure respect for the private and family life of the two applicants, in violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

- The European Court awarded jointly to the two applicants EUR 4,000 for non- pecuniary damage, which the Government paid on 5 December 2008.

- The divorce proceedings between the first applicant and her former husband ended in 2002 and the first applicant obtained custody of the child (§ 37 of the judgment). At the time of the judgment both applicants (mother and son) were already living abroad.

The Government is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violation of the applicants’ rights.

2) GENERAL MEASURES

The violation of Article 8 found by the Court resulted from imperfect legislation, which did not took into account the need to take special measures to protects persons in a vulnerable position like the applicants’. Since the time of the relevant events (2000-2002) new legislation has been enacted, providing for the necessary care.

- Concerning interim custody measures: At the relevant time, interim measures in divorce proceedings were regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952, in force until 2008, which did not provide for any special time-limits for examining requests for such measures. At present, the matter is regulated by the new Code of Civil Procedure of 2008, in which special care has been taken to ensure speedy decisions in the matter, Article 323 § 2 of the Code providing now that the courts are to decide on these measures at the same hearing where the respective measure has been requested. In cases where it is necessary to gather additional evidence, the courts are to schedule a new hearing within two weeks. The decision on interim measures is not amenable to appeal but can, at a request by the parties, be modified by the court which has given it – this can be the first-instance or the appellate court.

- Concerning protection from conjugal violence: The Protection Against Domestic Violence Act was adopted in 2005 and provides for administrative and policing measures in cases of physical, psychological or sexual violence in the home. In particular, it provides that the courts may issue injunctions or take other measures to remove the perpetrator from the common home, ban them from approaching the victim’s home, workplace or place of social contacts, temporarily remove the child from the custody of the perpetrator, or impose compulsory education programs. The courts can also fine the perpetrator. Failure to comply with measures imposed on the perpetrator may result in arrest and prosecution. The courts are to take the measures provided for in a speedy manner. In urgent cases they can order interim measures, which are to be decided on within 24 hours. The Act also provides for measures of prevention and rehabilitation of the victims, and for co-operation of the authorities with non-governmental organisations. In the Government’s view, this legislation is compatible with Recommendation Rec(2002)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (§§ 49-50 of the judgment), in so far as it relates to the problems identified in the present case. Since the Act’s adoption the measures provided therein have often been sought and applied by the national courts, which have developed significant jurisprudence in that regard.

In addition, the Child Protection Act of 2000 created a State Child Protection Agency and regional Social Care Offices, which are competent, inter alia, to take protection measures in respect of children in danger. They are empowered to act immediately and under an obligation to work in the best interests of the child.

The Government is thus of the view that no further general measures are necessary in the case.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16318
Andreev against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 11578/04, judgment of 10 February 2011, final on 10 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)915E);

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)915E);

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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16419
Evgeni Ivanov Titovi, Özver and Shipkov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 44009/02, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008

Application No. 3475/03, judgment of 25/06/2009, final on 25/09/2009

Application No. 22774/03, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

Application No. 26483/04, judgment of 24/02/2011)

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)908F);

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)908F);

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.

BILAN D’ACTION

Groupe Evgeni Ivanov c. Bulgarie (voir liste en annexe)

I: Des violations de la Convention

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a trouvé des violations de l’article 5, §§ 3 et 4 de la

Convention.

II. Description des affaires du groupe:

Les affaires de ce groupe concernent la durée excessive de la détention provisoire des requérants entre 2001 et 2006, sans que les autorités internes aient fourni des raisons pertinentes et suffisantes pour justifier le maintien en détention des intéressés. La Cour européenne a critiqué l’approche des tribunaux internes qui motivaient leurs décisions essentiellement en se fondant sur la gravité des charges retenues contre les requérants et les peines que ceux-ci encouraient en cas de condamnation ou bien considéraient que la détention se trouvait justifiée par le fait de la non-expiration de la durée maximale prévue par la loi (violations de l’article 5 § 3).

En outre, l’affaire Evgeni Ivanov concerne l’absence d’examen « à bref délai » par les tribunaux internes de recours contre la détention introduits par le requérant en 2002 (violation de l’article 5 §4).

III : Les mesures individuelles

Les procédures pénales diligentées contre les requérants ont pris fin. Les requérants ont été remis en liberté ou ne se trouvent plus détenus au titre de la détention provisoire. Le préjudice moral subi par les requérants qui ont formulé des demandes de satisfaction équitable a été indemnisé par la Cour européenne.

En conséquence, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

IV: Les mesures générales

1. Violation de l’article 5 § 3 due à l’absence de motifs pertinents et suffisants pour le maintien en détention des requérants

a. Mesures législatives et changement de la jurisprudence

Il convient de noter que les violations de l’article 5 § 3 constatées par la Cour dans ce groupe d’affaires concernent la période juste après la réforme d’envergure de la procédure pénale de 2000 qui a introduit une nouvelle réglementation du placement en détention provisoire (relative aux pouvoirs de placement, aux motifs de placement, au contrôle judiciaire, etc.).

Les nouvelles dispositions concernant les raisons de placement en détention provisoire sont entrées en vigueur le 1er janvier 2000. Depuis cette date, il est possible d’ordonner la détention provisoire dans les affaires concernant les crimes passibles d’une privation de liberté, lorsqu'il ressort du dossier de l'affaire qu'il y a un danger réel de voir l'accusé se soustraire à la justice ou commettre un crime. Si les preuves du dossier ne démontrent pas le contraire, il est admis que le danger réel existe dans certains cas énumérés (par exemple lorsqu’il s’agit de « récidive dangereuse » ou encore si le crime commis est passible d’une peine d’emprisonnement de plus de dix ans).

Suite à des divergences dans l’interprétation de cette nouvelle réglementation, la Cour suprême de cassation a clarifié sa portée dans un arrêt interprétatif de juin 2002 (arrêt n°2/2002). La haute juridiction a indiqué notamment que la nouvelle réglementation exclut toute possibilité de détention obligatoire et que l’existence d’un danger réel de voir l’accusé se soustraire à la justice ou commettre une infraction pénale doit être prouvée par les autorités dans chaque affaire (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158).

En 2005, un nouvel Code de procédure pénale (CPP de 2005) est entré en vigueur qui reprend en des termes similaires la réglementation introduite en 2000 (voir l’article 63 du CPP de 2005). Par ailleurs, l’article 56 § 3 obligent les autorités compétentes de prendre en compte les différents éléments de la situation personnelle du prévenu, tels que son état de santé, sa situation familiale, son âge, et autres circonstances personnelles.

b. diffusion et sensibilisation

La nécessité de veiller à ce que la détention provisoire soit fondée sur des motifs appropriés et ne se prolonge excessivement a été soulignée dans les nouveaux programmes de formation (initiale et continue) pour les juges et les procureurs, dispensée par l’Institut national de la justice. Dans le but de prévenir des violations de l’article 5 CEDH, des séminaires et d’autres activités sur ce sujet ont été organisés à l’intention des juges et des procureurs.

2. Violation de l’article 5 § 4

a. mesures législatives

Le CPP de 2005 prévoit des délais très courts pour l’examen des demandes de libération au stade de l’enquête préliminaire – trois jours pour le tribunal de première instance et sept jours pour le tribunal qui statue en appel (Article 65).

En revanche, il ne prévoit pas de délai spécifique pour l’examen des demandes de libération au stade judiciaire de l’affaire par le tribunal saisi du fond de la procédure pénale (Article 270). Le tribunal saisi d’un appel contre l’ordonnance d’un tribunal du fond en matière de détention provisoire doit se prononcer « dans un délai raisonnable » qui ne peut pas excéder un mois (article 270 en combinaison avec 345, alinéa 1 du CPP de 2005).

b. mesures de diffusion et de sensibilisation

La traduction du jugement Evgeni Ivanov est disponible sur le site du Ministère de la Justice à http://www.justice.government.bg/.

La traduction de l'arrêt a été diffusez aux juridictions ou autorités compétentes par le biais d'une lettre circulaire et il a pour objectif d’attirer l’attention des tribunaux internes sur la nécessité de se prononcer dans de brefs délais sur des demandes de libération au stade judiciaire d’une procédure pénale.

Eu égard aux informations ci-dessus, les autorités bulgares sont d’avis qu’aucune autre mesure générale n’est nécessaire pour l’exécution de ce groupe d’arrêts et que le Comité des Ministres peut envisager la clôture de l’examen des affaires en question.

Annexe : Liste des affaires du groupe Evgeni Ivanov

Evgeni Ivanov c. Bulgarie, n° 44009/02, arrêt du 22/05/2008, définitif le 22/08/2008

Titovi c. Bulgarie, n° 3475/03, arrêt du 25/06/2009, définitif le 25/09/2009

Shipkov c. Bulgarie, n° 26483/04, arrêt du 24/02/2011, définitif le 24/02/2011

Özver c. Bulgarie, n° 22774/03, arrêt du 22 octobre 2009, définitif le 22 janvier 2010

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16520
Al-Akidi and 5 other cases against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Al-Akidi, Application No. 35825/97, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

Dimov, Application No. 56762/00, judgment of 08/03/2007, final on 08/06/2007

E.M.K., Application No. 43231/98, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005

Hristov, Application No. 35436/97, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

Iliev, Application No. 48870/99, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005

Yosifov, Application No. 47279/99, judgment of 07/12/2003, final on 07/03/2004)

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)1029F);

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)1029F);

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.

Bilan d’action

Al-Akidi et 5 autres affaires contre la Bulgarie

(voir liste en annexe)

I. Description des affaires et des violations constatées par la Cour

Les affaires E.M.K et Yosifov concernent la violation du droit des requérants d’être aussitôt traduits devant un magistrat habilité par la loi à exercer des fonctions judiciaires pour contester la régularité de leur placement en détention provisoire, entre 1993 et 1999 (violations de l’article 5§3).

Les affaires Al-Akidi, Dimov, E.M.K., Hristov, Iliev concernent la durée excessive de la détention provisoire des requérants, entre 1993 et 2000, au vu de l’absence de raisons suffisantes à en justifier le maintien et de l’absence de diligence spéciale de la part des autorités dans la conduite de la procédure pénale dans l’affaire E.M.K. La Cour a constaté que les autorités compétentes avaient fondé leurs décisions de maintenir les requérants en détention provisoire sur des dispositions légales et une pratique interne qui mettaient en place un système de placement automatique en détention provisoire des personnes accusées d’infractions intentionnelles punies d'une peine supérieure à cinq ans et des personnes contre qui plus d’une enquête pénale était en cours (violations de l’article 5§3).

Les affaires E.M.K. et Hristov concernent également des violations du droit à un contrôle juridictionnel de la légalité de la détention provisoire (violations de l’article 5§4):

- en raison de la portée insuffisante de ce contrôle, dans la mesure où les tribunaux compétents n’ont pas examiné des faits pertinents évoqué par le requérant pouvant remettre en cause le bien-fondé de sa détention et ont refusé de se prononcer sur l’existence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner que le requérant ait commis une infraction pénale (Hristov) ;

- en raison de l’absence de procédure contradictoire devant une cour d'appel et devant la Cour suprême (E.M.K., Hristov) ;

L’affaire Yosifov a trait en outre à l'inexistence dans le système juridique bulgare d'un droit exécutoire à réparation pour des détentions contraires à l'article 5 de la Convention dans les cas où celles-ci ne sont pas illégales au regard du droit interne (violation de l'article 5§5).

Toutes les affaires concernent en outre la durée excessive des procédures pénales engagées contre les requérants (violations de l’article 6 § 1).

L’affaire Yosifov concerne également l’absence de recours interne effectif permettant de se plaindre de la durée excessive des procédures pénales (violation de l’article 13 en combinaison avec l’article 6 § 1).

II. Mesures individuelles

Les procédures pénales diligentées contre les requérants ont pris fin. Les requérants ont été remis en liberté ou ne se trouvent plus détenus au titre de la détention provisoire. Le préjudice moral subi par les requérants en raison des violations de la Convention a été indemnisé par la Cour européenne, sauf dans l’affaire Yosifov dans laquelle le requérant n’a pas formulé de demande de satisfaction équitable dans le délai prévu à cet effet.

En conséquence, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

III. Mesures générales

1. Mesures législatives

A la suite de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne dans l’affaire Assenov et autres contre la Bulgarie du 28 octobre 1998, le Parlement bulgare a adopté une réforme d’envergure de la procédure pénale. Les nouvelles dispositions du Code de procédure pénale de 1974 (ci-après « CPP de 1974 ») sont entrées en vigueur le 1er janvier 2000. En 2005, le Parlement bulgare a adopté un nouveau Code de procédure pénale, qui est entré en vigueur le 29 avril 2006 (ci-après « CPP de 2005 »).

- placement en détention provisoire par le procureur ou par le magistrat enquêteur au stade de l’enquête préliminaire (violations de l’article 5 § 3)

Les affaires E.M.K et Yosifov sont à rapprocher des affaires Assenov et autres (arrêt du 28 octobre1998) et Nikolova (arrêt du 25 mars 1999) dont l’examen a été clos respectivement par les Résolutions ResDH(2000)109 et ResDH(2000)110 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000.

Ainsi, il convient de rappeler qu’à compter du 1er janvier 2000, le placement en détention provisoire au stade de l’enquête préliminaire est ordonné par le tribunal de première instance. La décision du tribunal de première instance peut faire l’objet d’un appel devant le tribunal supérieur (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158).

- placement obligatoire en détention provisoire dans certaines hypothèses et absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite de la procédure (violations de l’article 5 § 3)

En ce qui concerne la question du placement obligatoire en détention provisoire, les affaires Al-Akidi, Dimov, E.M.K., Hristov et Iliev sont à rapprocher des affaires Assenov et autres (arrêt du 28 octobre 1998), Nikolova (arrêt du 25 mars 1999) et Ilijkov (arrêt du 26 juillet 2001) dont l’examen a été clos respectivement par les Résolutions ResDH(2000)109, ResDH(2000)110 et CM/ResDH(2007)158 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000 et après certaines autres mesures générales prises par les autorités dans les années suivant cette réforme.

Il convient de relever, en outre, qu’au vu de certains cas de motivation insuffisante de la détention provisoire postérieurs à la réforme de 2000, la question de la nécessité de mesures complémentaires à cet égard est actuellement examinée par le Comité des Ministres dans le cadre de l’affaire Evgeni Ivanov contre Bulgarie (arrêt du 22/05/2008).

En ce qui concerne la question de l’absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite de la procédure, l’affaire E.M.K. est à rapprocher de l’affaire Roumen Todorov (arrêt du 20 octobre 2005) dont l’examen a été clos par la Résolution CM/ResDH(2007)158 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000 et après certaines autres mesures générales prises par les autorités dans les années suivant cette réforme (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158).

- absence de procédure contradictoire devant une cour d'appel et devant la Cour suprême (violations de l’article 5§4)

Les autorités relèvent que les affaires E.M.K. et Hristov concernent des violations similaires aux violations constatées dans les affaires Ilijkov et Mihov dont l’examen a été clos par la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158 (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe I de cette résolution).

2. Publication, formation et sensibilisation

Les arrêts dans les affaires Dimov et E.M.K ont été traduits et publiés sur le site Internet du Ministère de la justice http://www.justice.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx

Par ailleurs, entre 2001 et 2006, six séminaires de formation ont été organisés pour des juges, procureurs, représentants du Ministère de la justice et pour des policiers bulgares.

3. Questions en suspens examinées dans d’autres groupes d’affaires

- l’absence d’examen de l’existence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner qu’un détenu a commis une infraction pénale dans le cadre du contrôle de la détention au stade judiciaire d’une affaire pénale (violation de l’article 5§4)

A l’époque des faits décrits dans l’affaire Hristov, l’interdiction pour les tribunaux saisis du fond d’une affaire pénale d’examiner l’existence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner qu’un détenu ait commis une infraction pénale avait une origine jurisprudentielle. En mai 2003, cette même interdiction a été inscrite dans les codes de procédure pénale (article 268a, alinéa 1 du CPP de 1974, remplacé par 270, alinéa 2 du CPP de 2005). Cette question est actuellement examiner dans le groupe d’affaires Bochev (n° 73481/01).

- absence d'un droit exécutoire à réparation pour des détentions contraires à l'article 5 de la Convention dans les cas où celles-ci ne sont pas illégales au regard du droit interne (violations de l'article 5§5).

Cette question, soulevée par l’affaire Yosifov, est actuellement examinée dans le groupe d’affaires Yankov (39084/97).

- durée excessive des procédures pénales et absence de recours effectif à cet égard (violations de l’article 6 § 1 et de l’article 13)
Ces questions sont actuellement examinées dans le groupe d’affaires Kitov (37104/97) et de l’arrêt pilote Dimitrov et Hamanov (48059/06 et 2708/09).

Annexe

Liste des affaires

Nom et n° requête

Dommage matériel

Dommage moral

    Frais & dépens

Total

Al-Akidi

35825/97

-

4 000 EUR

2 000 EUR

6 000 EUR

Arrêt du 31/07/2003 Définitif le 31/10/2003 Payé le 30/01/2004

Dimov

56762/00

-

1 700 EUR

700 EUR

2 400 EUR

Arrêt du 08/03/2007 Définitif le 08/06/2007 Payé le 05/09/2007

E.M.K.

43231/98

-

3 000 EUR

1 500 EUR

4 500 EUR

Arrêt du 18/01/2005 Définitif le 18/04/2005 Payé le 13/07/2005

Hristov

35436/97

-

3 000 EUR

2 000 EUR

5 000 EUR

Arrêt du 31/07/2003 Définitif le 31/10/2003 Payé le 30/01/2004

Iliev

48870/99

-

4 000 EUR

1 500 EUR

5 500 EUR

Arrêt du 22/12/2004 Définitif le 22/03/2005 Payé le 23/06/2005

Yosifov

47279/99

-

-

-

-

Arrêt du 07/12/2003 Définitif le 07/03/2004

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16621
Bojilov and 8 other cases against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Bojilov, Application No. 45114/98, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005

Bojinov, Application No. 47799/99, judgment of 28/10/2004, final on 28/01/2005

Asenov, Application No. 42026/98, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

Hristova, Application No. 60859/00, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 07/03/2007

Georgieva, Application No. 16085/02, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008

Mitev, Application No. 40063/98, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005

Popov, Application No. 48137/99, judgment of 01/12/2005, final on 01/03/2006

Toshev, Application No. 56308/00, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006

Vasilev, Application No. 59913/00, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006)

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases, and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1028F);

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)1028F);

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.

BILAN D’ACTION

Bojilov et 8 autres affaires c. Bulgarie

(voir liste de 9 affaires en annexe)

I. Violations constatées par la Cour

La Cour a constaté des violations des articles 5 §§ 3 et 4, 6 § 1 et 13.

a) maintien illégal des requérants en détention provisoire

Les affaires Asenov, Bojilov, Bojinov, Hristova, Mitev et Popov concernent le maintien illégal des requérants en détention provisoire postérieurement aux décisions des tribunaux ordonnant leur élargissement (Asenov, Bojilov, Bojinov et Mitev) ou après l'expiration du délai maximal pour la détention provisoire fixé par la loi (Hristova et Popov) (violations de l'article 5§1).

b) durée excessive de la détention provisoire des requérants en raison de leur incapacité de verser la garantie exigée pour leur libération et absence de contrôle juridictionnel à cet égard

Les affaires Asenov, Bojilov, Georgieva, Hristova et Toshev concernent la durée excessive de la détention provisoire des requérants entre décembre 1994 et mars 2002, au vu de l'absence de raisons suffisantes à en justifier le maintien et au vu de l'absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite de la procédure dans l’affaire Georgieva. Dans toutes ces affaires les requérants sont restés détenus en raison de leur incapacité de verser la garantie exigée pour leur libération, sans qu’un tribunal ait examiné la question de savoir si les intéressés étaient en mesure de fournir une garantie à la hauteur des sommes demandées (violations de l’article 5 § 3).

Les affaires Asenov, Hristova, Toshev et Vasilev concernent également l'absence de contrôle juridictionnel de la légalité de la détention en raison des refus des tribunaux compétents d'examiner au fond les recours des requérants relatifs à la mesure de cautionnement, introduits entre 1997 et 2001, malgré le fait que les intéressés étaient restés en détention en raison de leur incapacité de s’acquitter de la garantie exigée (violations de l'article 5 § 4).

c)autres violations

Les affaires Asenov, Bojilov et Mitev concernent des violations du droit des requérants d'être traduits devant un juge aussitôt après leur arrestation (violations de l'article 5§3).

Les affaires Asenov, Popov et Toshev concernent la durée excessive de la détention provisoire des requérants entre décembre 1994 et mars 1999 au vu de l'absence de raisons suffisantes à en justifier le maintien, étant donné que le placement et le maintien des requérants en détention provisoire avaient été fondés sur des dispositions légales et une pratique interne qui mettaient en place un système de placement obligatoire en détention provisoire des personnes accusées d’infractions intentionnelles punies d'une peine supérieure à cinq ans et des personnes contre qui plus d’une enquête pénale était en cours (violations de l’article 5 § 3).

Les affaires Mitev et Vasilev concernent la durée excessive de la détention provisoire des requérants au vu de l'absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite des procédures dans ces affaires (violations de l'article 5 § 3).

L’affaire Georgieva concerne une violation du droit à un contrôle juridictionnel de la légalité de la détention (violation de l’article 5§4) en raison du refus des tribunaux compétents d’examiner des faits pertinents évoqués par la requérante pouvant remettre en cause l’existence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner qu’elle avait commis une infraction pénale (violation de l’article 5 § 4).

Les affaires Hristova, Mitev et Popov ont également trait au défaut d'examen à bref délai par les juridictions concernées de certaines demandes de mise en liberté formulées par les requérants au stade de l’enquête préliminaire (violations de l'article 5 § 4).

Les affaires Bojilov, Bojinov, Hristova et Mitev ont trait en outre à l'inexistence dans le système juridique bulgare d'un droit exécutoire à réparation pour des détentions contraires à l'article 5 de la Convention dans les cas où celles-ci ne sont pas illégales au regard du droit interne (violations de l'article 5 § 5).

Les affaires Asenov, Hristova et Mitev concernent également la durée excessive des procédures pénales diligentées contre les requérants (violations de l'article 6 § 1).

Les affaires Mitev et Popov concernent l'absence de recours effectif permettant d'obtenir la sanction du droit à un procès « dans un délai raisonnable » (violations de l'article 13 combiné avec l’article 6 § 1).

II. Mesures individuelles

Les procédures pénales diligentées contre les requérants ont pris fin. Les requérants ont été remis en liberté ou ne se trouvent plus détenus au titre de la détention provisoire. Le préjudice moral subi par les requérants en raison des violations de la Convention a été indemnisé par la Cour européenne.

En conséquence, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.


III. Mesures générales

1. Mesures législatives

A la suite de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne dans l’affaire Assenov et autres c. Bulgarie du 28 octobre 1998, le Parlement bulgare a adopté une réforme d’envergure de la procédure pénale. Les nouvelles dispositions du Code de procédure pénale de 1974 (ci après « CPP de 1974 ») sont entrées en vigueur le 1er janvier 2000. En 2005, le Parlement bulgare a adopté un nouveau Code de procédure pénale, qui est entré en vigueur le 29 avril 2006 (ci-après « CPP de 2005 »).

a) maintien illégal en détention provisoire postérieurement aux décisions des tribunaux ordonnant l’élargissement et/ou maintien en détention provisoire après l'expiration du délai maximal pour la détention provisoire fixé par la loi (violations de l'article 5§1)

Les autorités indiquent que la réforme du 1er janvier 2000 a supprimé les limitations du droit des détenus de contester la légalité d’une détention provisoire (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158). En plus, cette réforme a prévu de brefs délais pour l’examen des demandes d’élargissement au stade de l’enquête préliminaire (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe de la Résolution CM/ResDH(2007)158). De l’avis des autorités, cette amélioration du contrôle judiciaire des détentions provisoires constitue une garantie importante contre le maintien illégal d’une personne en détention provisoire.

Dans la mesure où les omissions ayant entrainé des violations de l’article 5 § 1 méconnaissent également le droit interne bulgare, les autorités considèrent qu’aucune mesure législative supplémentaire ne s’impose et que les mesures de publication, de formation et de sensibilisation résumées ci-dessous sont suffisantes pour attirer l’attention des organes compétents sur la nécessité d’exécuter avec célérité toute décision de remise en liberté.

b) durée excessive d’une détention liée à l’incapacité de verser la garantie exigée (violations de l’article 5 § 3) et absence de contrôle judiciaire de la nécessité de maintenir la détention provisoire en cas d’incapacité de fournir une garantie (violations de l’article 5 § 4)

- maintien en détention en raison de l’incapacité de s’acquitter d’une garantie (violations de l’article 5 § 3)

En ce qui concerne la possibilité de placer en détention ou de maintenir en détention une personne pour non-versement de la garantie exigée, les autorités rappellent que le droit interne prévoit, comme avant la réforme du 1er janvier 2000, que la situation matérielle d’un prévenu doit être prise en compte par les organes qui fixent le montant de la garantie (article 150, alinéa 2 du CPP de 1974, remplacé par l’article 61, alinéa 2 du CPP de 2005). Les autorités notent à cet égard que l’application de cette disposition a été clarifiée dans l’arrêt interprétatif du 25 juin 2002 de la Cour suprême de cassation (arrêt no2/2002), dans laquelle la haute juridiction a donné des indications concernant l’étendue du contrôle judiciaire de la légalité d’une détention résultant du défaut de versement d’une garantie. La Cour suprême de cassation a précisé que le montant de la garantie était un des éléments que les tribunaux examinant une demande de remise en liberté devaient évaluer, en tenant compte de la situation personnelle du détenu.

Les autorités indiquent également que la réforme du 1er janvier 2000 a modifié la procédure selon laquelle les mesures de placement et de maintien en détention provisoire pour défaut de versement de la garantie sont prises et contrôlées.

Ainsi, le droit interne actuel prévoit toujours la possibilité de prendre une mesure de contrôle plus sévère en cas de non-versement de la garantie, mais l'imposition d’une telle mesure doit suivre la nouvelle procédure de placement en détention provisoire (article 150, alinéa 4 du CPP de 1974, remplacé par l’article 61 § 5 du CPP de 2005). La décision de remplacer la garantie par une mesure de contrôle plus lourde doit être prise par un tribunal compétent (articles 59 - 63 du CPP de 2005). Les autorités considèrent que l’examen par un tribunal de la nécessité de prendre une mesure de contrôle plus lourde devrait prévenir le placement en détention non justifié de personnes qui sont dans l’incapacité de s’acquitter d’une garantie.

De même, le droit interne actuel prévoit toujours que la libération d’un détenu sous caution devient effective après le dépôt de la garantie exigée. Cela dit, les autorités considèrent que l’amélioration du contrôle judiciaire en cas de maintien en détention d’une personne ne disposant pas de fonds nécessaire pour s’acquitter de la garantie demandée pour son élargissement devrait permettre une prise en compte adéquate de la situation matérielle des détenus.

- contrôle judiciaire de la détention pour non versement de la garantie (violations de l’article 5 § 4)
En ce qui concerne le contrôle judiciaire de la légalité de la détention pour non versement de la garantie, les autorités notent que jusqu'au 1er janvier 2000, la possibilité d'introduire un recours judiciaire au stade de l'instruction préliminaire ne concernait que les personnes faisant l'objet d'une mesure de détention provisoire et non celles détenues en raison du défaut de paiement d’une garantie. Dans la phase judiciaire du procès, les demandes de modification de la mesure étaient examinées par le tribunal devant lequel l'affaire était pendante, en vertu de la compétence générale de se prononcer sur toute question relative à l'affaire et d'une pratique judiciaire bien établie. En principe, cette compétence générale s’appliquait aux situations dans lesquelles un prévenu était détenu en raison de son incapacité de fournir une garantie.

La réforme du 1er janvier 2000 a créé au profit du prévenu la faculté de contester, à tous les stades de la procédure, y compris au stade de l’instruction préliminaire, la légalité de la détention lorsqu'elle résulte d'un défaut de versement de la garantie demandée (article 152b, alinéa 12 du CPP de 1974, remplacé par l’article 65, alinéa 11 du CPP de 2005). L’examen de tels recours suit la procédure prévue pour l’examen des recours contre la détention provisoire (pour plus de détails sur la réglementation actuelle concernant l’examen des recours contre la détention provisoire, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158). En particulier, le tribunal saisi d’un tel recours a l’obligation de tenir compte de tous les éléments de preuve et aspects pertinents relatifs à la légalité de la détention, y compris de la situation matérielle du détenu.

En outre, au stade de l’enquête préliminaire, dans les cas où le montant de la garantie est fixé par le procureur, l’accusé a la possibilité de contester ce montant devant le tribunal de premier instance (article 61, alinéa 3 du CPP de 2005).

c) mesures concernant les autres violations de l’article 5, §§ 3 et 4

- placement en détention provisoire par le procureur ou par le magistrat enquêteur au stade de l’enquête préliminaire (violations de l’article 5 § 3)

Les affaires Asenov, Bojilov et Mitev sont à rapprocher des affaires Assenov et autres (arrêt du 28 octobre1998) et Nikolova (arrêt du 25 mars 1999) dont l’examen a été clos respectivement par les Résolutions ResDH(2000)109 et ResDH(2000)110 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000.

- placement obligatoire en détention provisoire dans certaines hypothèses et absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite de la procédure (violations de l’article 5 § 3)

En ce qui concerne la question du placement obligatoire en détention provisoire, les affaires Asenov, Popov et Toshev sont à rapprocher des affaires Assenov et autres (arrêt du 28 octobre 1998), Nikolova (arrêt du 25 mars 1999) et Ilijkov (arrêt du 26 juillet 2001) dont l’examen a été clos respectivement par les Résolutions ResDH(2000)109, ResDH(2000)110 et CM/ResDH(2007)158 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000 et après certaines autres mesures générales prises par les autorités dans les années suivant cette réforme (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158).

Il convient de relever, en outre, qu’au vu de certains cas de motivation insuffisante de la détention provisoire postérieurs à la réforme de 2000, la question de la nécessité de mesures complémentaires à cet égard est actuellement examinée par le Comité des Ministres dans le cadre de l’affaire Evgeni Ivanov contre Bulgarie (arrêt du 22/05/2008).

En ce qui concerne la question de l’absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite de la procédure, les affaires Georgieva, Mitev et Vasilev sont à rapprocher de l’affaire Roumen Todorov (arrêt du 20 octobre 2005) dont l’examen a été clos par la Résolution CM/ResDH(2007)158 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000 et après certaines autres mesures générales prises par les autorités dans les années suivant cette réforme (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158).

- absence d’examen à bref délai des demandes d’élargissement au stade de l’enquête préliminaire (violations de l’article 5 § 4)

Les affaires Hristova, Mitev et Popov sont à rapprocher à cet égard à l’affaire Ilijkov (arrêt du 26 juillet 2001) dont l’examen a été clos par Résolution CM/ResDH(2007)158.

En particulier, au stade de l’enquête préliminaire, le recours contre la détention provisoire doit être examiné par le tribunal compétent dans un délai de 3 jours, en audience publique, en présence de l'accusé, de son défenseur et du procureur. Le tribunal notifie sa décision à l'issue de l'audience. Un appel contre cette décision peut être formé dans un délai de 3 jours devant un tribunal supérieur. Le tribunal supérieur examine l'affaire dans un délai de 7 jours, en audience publique, en présence de l'accusé, de son défenseur et du procureur (article 152b du CPP de 2005, remplacé par l’article 65 du nouveau du CPP de 2005).

En ce qui concerne l’examen à bref délai des demandes d’élargissement au stade judiciaire d’une affaire pénale, la nécessité de prendre des mesures supplémentaires est actuellement en examen dans le groupe d’affaires Evgeni Ivanov.

2. Publication, diffusion et sensibilisation

Les autorités ont diffusé les arrêts de la Cour européenne dans les affaires Bojilov et Asenov au tribunal de première instance de Sofia et au bureau du procureur auprès de ce tribunal.

Les arrêts dans les affaires Asenov, Bojilov, Bojinov, Mitev, Popov, Vasilev et Toshev ont été traduits et publiés sur le site Internet du Ministère de la justice http://www.justice.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx

Par ailleurs, entre 2001 et 2006, six séminaires de formation ont été organisés pour des juges, procureurs, représentants du Ministère de la justice et pour des policiers bulgares.

3. Questions en suspens examinées dans d’autres groupes d’affaires

- l’absence d’examen de l’existence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner qu’un détenu a commis une infraction pénale dans le cadre du contrôle de la détention au stade judiciaire d’une affaire pénale (violation de l’article 5§4)

A l’époque des faits décrits dans l’affaire Georgieva, l’interdiction pour les tribunaux saisis du fond d’une affaire pénale d’examiner l’existence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner qu’un détenu ait commis une infraction pénale avait une origine jurisprudentielle. En mai 2003, cette même interdiction a été inscrite dans le CPP de 1974 (article 268a, alinéa 1 du CPP de 1974, remplacé par 270, alinéa 2 du CPP de 2005). Cette question est actuellement examiner dans le groupe d’affaires Bochev (n° 73481/01).

- absence d'un droit exécutoire à réparation pour des détentions contraires à l'article 5 de la Convention dans les cas où celles-ci ne sont pas illégales au regard du droit interne (violations de l'article 5§5)

Cette question est actuellement examinée dans le groupe Yankov (39084/97).

- motivation insuffisante de la détention provisoire et absence d’examen à bref délai des demandes d’élargissement au stade judiciaire d’une affaire pénale dans certains cas postérieurs à la réforme de 2000
Ces questions sont actuellement examinées dans le cadre du groupe d’affaires Evgeni Ivanov contre la Bulgarie.

- durée excessive des procédures pénales et absence de recours effectif à cet égard (violations de l’article 6 § 1 et de l’article 13)
Ces questions sont actuellement examinées dans les groupes d’affaires Kitov (37104/97) et Dimitrov et Hamanov (48059/06 et 2708/09).

Annexe

Liste des affaires

Nom et n° requête

Dommage matériel

Dommage moral

    Frais & dépens

Total

Bojilov

45114/98

-

3 000 EUR

-

3 000 EUR

Arrêt du 22/12/2004 Définitif le 22/03/2005 Payé le 22/06/2005

Bojinov

47799/99

-

1 000 EUR

1 000 EUR

2 000 EUR

Arrêt du 28/10/2004 Définitif le 28/01/2005 Payé le 22/04/2005

Asenov

42026/98

-

7 000 EUR

2 500 EUR

9 500 EUR

Arrêt du 15/07/2005 Définitif le 15/10/2005 Payé le 10/01/2006

Hristova

60859/00

-

4 500 EUR

-

4 500 EUR

Arrêt du 07/12/2006 Définitif le 07/03/2007 Payé le 29/05/2007

Georgieva

16085/02

-

3 000 EUR

2 000 EUR

5 000

Arrêt du 03/07/2008 Définitif le 13/10/2008 Payé le 20/12/2008

Mitev

40063/98

-

4 000 EUR

3 000 EUR

7 000 EUR

Arrêt du 22/12/2004 Définitif le 22/03/2005 Payé le 12/07/2005

Popov

48137/99

-

3 500 EUR

2 000 EUR

5 500 EUR

Arrêt du 01/12/2005 Définitif le 01/03/2006 Payé le 29/05/2006

Toshev

56308/00

-

3 500 EUR

2 000 EUR

5 500 EUR

Arrêt du 10/08/2006 Définitif le 10/11/2006 Payé le 20/04/2007

Vasilev

59913/00

-

4 000 EUR

5 500 EUR

9 500 EUR

Arrêt du 02/02/2006 Définitif le 02/05/2006 Payé le 01/08/2006

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16722
Nikolova No. 2 and two other cases against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Nikolova No. 2, Application No. 40896/98, judgment of 30/09/2004, final on 30/12/2004

Danov, Application No. 56796/00, judgment of 26/10/2006, final on 26/01/2007

Pekov, Application No. 50358/99, judgment of 30/03/2006, final on 30/06/2006)

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1030F);

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)1030F);

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.

BILAN D’ACTION

Nikolova n°2 et 2 autres affaires c. Bulgarie

(voir liste en annexe)

I. Violations constatées par la Cour

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a trouvé des violations de l’article 5, §§ 3 et 4 et de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention.

- violations de l’article 5, §§ 3 et 4 relatives à l’assignation à domicile des requérants

Les affaires Nikolova n°2, Pekov et Danov concernent la durée excessive de l'assignation à résidence des requérants, entre 1995 et 2001, au vu de l’absence de raisons suffisantes à en justifier le maintien et de l’absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite de la procédure dans l’affaire Nikolova n°2 (violations de l’article 5§3).

Les affaires Nikolova nº 2 et Pekov concernent l’absence de contrôle judiciaire de l'assignation à domicile des requérants avant le 1er janvier 2000 (violations de l'article 5§4).

- autres violations

Les affaires Danov et Pekov concernent la violation du droit des requérants d’être aussitôt traduits devant un magistrat habilité par la loi à exercer des fonctions judiciaires pour contester la régularité de leur placement en détention provisoire, entre 1993 et 1999 (violations de l’article 5§3).

Les affaires Nikolova n°2 et Danov concernent la durée excessive de la détention provisoire des requérants, entre 1993 et 2000, au vu de l’absence de raisons suffisantes à en justifier le maintien et de l’absence de diligence spéciale de la part des autorités dans la conduite de la procédure pénale dans l’affaire Nikolova n°2. La Cour a constaté que les autorités compétentes avaient fondé leurs décisions de maintenir les requérants en détention provisoire sur des dispositions légales et une pratique interne qui mettaient en place un système de placement automatique en détention provisoire des personnes accusées d’infractions intentionnelles punies d'une peine supérieure à cinq ans et des personnes contre qui plus d’une enquête pénale était en cours (violations de l’article 5§3).

L’affaire Danov concerne également la violation du droit à un contrôle juridictionnel de la légalité de la détention provisoire (violation de l’article 5§4) en raison de l’iniquité de la procédure de contrôle judiciaire due à l’impossibilité pour la défense et pour les tribunaux examinant les demandes d’élargissement d’avoir accès à certains éléments réunis par le biais de mesures de surveillance secrète par la police.

Toutes les affaires concernent en outre la durée excessive des procédures pénales engagées contre les requérants (violations de l’article 6 § 1).

II. Mesures individuelles

Les procédures pénales diligentées contre les requérants ont pris fin. Les requérants ont été remis en liberté ou ne se trouvent plus détenus au titre de la détention provisoire. Le préjudice moral subi par les requérants en raison des violations de la Convention a été indemnisé par la Cour européenne.


En conséquence, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

III. Mesures générales

1. Mesures législatives

A la suite de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne dans l’affaire Assenov et autres contre la Bulgarie du 28 octobre 1998, le Parlement bulgare a adopté une réforme d’envergure de la procédure pénale. Les nouvelles dispositions du Code de procédure pénale de 1974 (ci-après « CPP de 1974 ») sont entrées en vigueur le 1er janvier 2000. En 2005, le Parlement bulgare a adopté un nouveau Code de procédure pénale, qui est entré en vigueur le 29 avril 2006 (ci-après « CPP de 2005 »).

a) durée excessive de l'assignation à résidence (violations de l’article 5 § 3) et absence de contrôle judiciaire de l'assignation à domicile (violations de l’article 5 § 4)

Jusqu’au 1er janvier 2000, l’assignation à résidence pouvait être ordonnée lors de la phase de l’enquête préliminaire par un magistrat enquêteur ou un procureur. A l’époque considérée, le CPP de 1974 ne prévoyait pas de contrôle juridictionnel de l’assignation à résidence. Ainsi, la seule possibilité pour une personne faisant l’objet d’une telle mesure d’obtenir sa libération était de s’adresser à un procureur. Si celui-ci refusait d’accorder la libération, la personne pouvait saisir le procureur supérieur.
La réforme législative du 1er janvier 2000 a aligné le régime de l’assignation à résidence sur le régime de la détention provisoire en ce qui concerne la décision de prendre cette mesure de détention et le contrôle judiciaire de sa légalité (pour plus de détails concernant la nouvelle réglementation de la détention provisoire, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158). Cet alignement de l’assignation à résidence sur le régime de la détention provisoire est en accord avec la décision interprétative de la Cour constitutionnelle bulgare du 27 juillet 1992 (décision n° 10/1992) selon laquelle « (...) [L]’assignation à résidence constitue aussi une forme de détention et [représente] une atteinte à la sûreté [de la personne]. »

Ainsi, depuis la réforme du 1er janvier 2000 l’assignation à domicile est ordonnée et contrôlée par le tribunal de première instance, y compris au stade de l’enquête préliminaire. La décision du tribunal de première instance peut faire l’objet d’un appel devant le tribunal supérieur.

Dans la mesure où l’assignation à domicile est considérée comme une forme de détention, la question de la nécessité de maintenir une personne sous le coup d’une telle mesure est examinée par les tribunaux de la même manière que la question de la nécessité de maintenir une personne en détention provisoire. En particulier, le tribunal saisi d’un recours contre l’assignation à domicile a l’obligation de tenir compte de tous les aspects pertinents relatifs à la légalité de la détention. Dans son arrêt interprétatif de juin 2002 (arrêt no2/2002) la Cour suprême de cassation a précisé que toute possibilité de détention obligatoire est exclue et que l’existence d’un danger réel de voir l’accusé se soustraire à la justice ou commettre une autre infraction pénale doit être démontrée par les autorités dans chaque affaire.

b) autres violations de l’article 5, §§ 3 et 4

- placement en détention provisoire par le procureur ou par le magistrat enquêteur au stade de l’enquête préliminaire (violations de l’article 5 § 3)

Les affaires Danov et Pekov sont à rapprocher des affaires Assenov et autres (arrêt du 28 octobre1998) et Nikolova (arrêt du 25 mars 1999) dont l’examen a été clos respectivement par les Résolutions ResDH(2000)109 et ResDH(2000)110 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000.

- placement obligatoire en détention provisoire dans certaines hypothèses et absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite de la procédure (violations de l’article 5 § 3)

En ce qui concerne la question du placement obligatoire en détention provisoire, l’affaire Danov est à rapprocher des affaires Assenov et autres (arrêt du 28 octobre 1998), Nikolova (arrêt du 25 mars 1999) et Ilijkov (arrêt du 26 juillet 2001) dont l’examen a été clos respectivement par les Résolutions ResDH(2000)109, ResDH(2000)110 et CM/ResDH(2007)158 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000 et après certaines autres mesures générales prises par les autorités dans les années suivant cette réforme.

Il convient de relever, en outre, qu’au vu de certains cas de motivation insuffisante de la détention provisoire postérieurs à la réforme de 2000, la question de la nécessité de mesures complémentaires à cet égard est actuellement examinée par le Comité des Ministres dans le cadre de l’affaire Evgeni Ivanov contre Bulgarie (arrêt du 22/05/2008).

En ce qui concerne la question de l’absence de diligence spéciale dans la conduite de la procédure, l’affaire Nikolova n°2 est à rapprocher de l’affaire Roumen Todorov (arrêt du 20 octobre 2005) dont l’examen a été clos par la Résolution CM/ResDH(2007)158 après la réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 1er janvier 2000 et après certaines autres mesures générales prises par les autorités dans les années suivant cette réforme (pour plus de détails, voir l’Annexe I de la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158).

- iniquité de la procédure de contrôle judiciaire due à l’impossibilité pour la défense et pour les tribunaux examinant les demandes d’élargissement d’avoir accès à certains éléments réunis par la police par le biais de mesures de surveillance secrète (violation de l’article 5 § 4)

Les autorités notent que la violation dans l’affaire Danov révèle certaines similarités avec les violations constatées dans les affaires Shishkov et Nikolov dans lesquelles la surveillance de l’exécution a été close avec la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)158. Elles notent que, comme dans ces deux affaires, dans l’affaire Danov la législation interne régissant l’accès aux dossiers des prévenus n’a pas été mise en cause. Elles estiment donc que la violation constatée par la Cour dans l’affaire Danov revêt un caractère isolé. En conséquence, les autorités considèrent qu’aucune mesure législative ne s’impose et que les mesures de publication, de formation et de sensibilisation décrites ci-dessous sont suffisantes pour prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

2. Publication, formation et sensibilisation

Les arrêts dans les affaires Danov, Nikolova n°2 et Pekov ont été traduits et publiés sur le site Internet du Ministère de la justice http://www.justice.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx.

Par ailleurs, entre 2001 et 2006, six séminaires de formation ont été organisés pour des juges, procureurs, représentants du Ministère de la justice et pour des policiers bulgares.

3. Questions en suspens examinées dans d’autres groupes d’affaires

- motivation insuffisante de la détention provisoire dans certains cas postérieurs à la réforme de 2000
Cette question est actuellement examinée dans le cadre du groupe d’affaires Evgeni Ivanov contre la Bulgarie.

- durée excessive des procédures pénales (violations de l’article 6 § 1)
Ces questions sont actuellement examinées dans le groupe d’affaires d’affaires Kitov (37104/97) et de l’arrêt pilote Dimitrov et Hamanov (48059/06 et 2708/09).

Annexe 

Liste des affaires

Nom et n° requête

Dommage matériel

Dommage moral

    Frais & dépens

Total

Danov

56796/00

-

4 000 EUR

2 000 EUR

6 000 EUR

Arrêt du 26/10/2006 Définitif le 26/01/2007 Payé le 26/04/2007

Nikolova n°2

40896/98

-

4 000 EUR

1 800 EUR

5 800 EUR

Arrêt du 30/09/2004 Définitif le 30/12/2004 Payé le 25/03/2005

Pekov

50358/99

-

6 500 EUR

1 500 EUR

8 000 EUR

Arrêt du 30/03/2006 Définitif le 30/06/2006 Payé le 28/09/2006

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16823
Zdravko Petrov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 20024/04, judgment of 23/06/2011, final on 23/09/2011)

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 violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)1059E);

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)1059E);

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 on the execution of the judgment Zdravko Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 20024/04)

Delivered on 23/06/2011

Final on 23/09/2011

This case concerns the failure of the state to comply with its obligations under article 34 of the Convention. The Court saw no justification for the competent authorities’refusal to provide the applicant with copies of documents related to criminal proceedings against him. In particular, the Court considered that the applicant should not have been required to prove to the authorities’ satisfaction that the above-mentioned documents had been specifically requested by the Court’s Registry. Therefore, the Court concluded that the authorities had interfered unjustifiably with the applicant’s right of individual petition and had thus failed to comply with their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention not to hinder the effective exercise of this right

The complaints under article 6 of the Convention were declared inadmissible.

1. Individual measures:

An amount of just satisfaction has not been awarded by the Court, as the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in proper form. Therefore, no individual measures seem necessary.

2. General measures 

The Government considers that the violation of Article 34 of the Convention found in this case is an isolated one.

Therefore, a letter with concrete points concerning the interpretation and the application of Article 34 of the Convention concerning the effective enjoyment of the right to pursue and present a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights was sent to the president of the court directly concerned by the present case (the Ruse Regional Court). This measure would prevent any future infringements of similar nature.

The translation of the judgment will be available soon and will be published on the website of the Ministry of justice www.justice.government.bg. It will be disseminated with circular letter to the interested stakeholders.

The Government considers that no further general measures are necessary at national level.

3. Conclusions

In view of the foregoing the government considers to have complied with its obligation under article 46 §1 of the Convention. Thus we are looking forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.

Sofia, 12 September 2012

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)16924
Boychev and others against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 77185/01, judgment of 27/01/2011, final on 27/04/2011)

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)1058E);

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)1058E);

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 Case Boychev and others v. Bulgaria

Application No 77185/01, Judgment of 27/01/2011, Final on 27/04/2011

1. Convention violation found

This case concerns the interference with the right of the applicants (followers of the Unification Church founded by Sun Myung Moon) to manifest their religion due to the interruption of a religious meeting in 1997 and to the search and seisure of documents and other items conducted by the police in the absence of legal basis in domestic law meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention (violation of Article 9). It also concerns the lack of effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 9).

2. Individual measures

a) The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicants’ account on 06.07.2011.

b) The case concerns the police intervention at a religious meeting on 6 April 1997 of the applicants’ organization.

According to the most recent information we have from the Blagoevgrad District Court the applicants did not avail themselves of the possibility to request the restitution of the remaining seized objects (books and video recordings) after April 2001 (when was delivered the last instance court’s decision in their case at domestic level).

No individual measures seem to be appropriate in this case

3. General measures

a) legislative measures and current judicial practice

According to the Court’s judgment, at the relevant time the public prosecutor had under Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an almost unrestricted discretionary power, a situation which was incompatible with the minimum degree of protection required by the rule of law.

Secondly, Bulgarian law was unclear as to the possibility of holding a religious meeting when the organisation in question had not been registered (there was a discrepancy between law and practice, so that the applicants could not have known what conduct to adopt). The interference in question had thus lacked legal basis meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention.  

Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which concerned the obligation for prosecutors to take measures in order to prevent a crime has been revoked in 2003. Latter, in 2005 a new Code of Criminal Procedure has been adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament which does not contain such provision.
On the other hand, in a judgment of May 2001, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed its stance that religious associations do not need to be registered in order to hold religious meetings (see § 34 of the Boychev judgment).

Finally, a new Religious Denominations Act has been adopted which provides that a judicial body - the Sofia City Court - and no longer the executive, is competent to register religious communities wishing to obtain legal personality.

The current legal framework is in full compliance with the requirements of the Convention.
As regards the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the authorities consider that following to changes in the legislative framework and practice presented above and the conclusions in the judgment delivered given by the European Court, the domestic courts will not fail to comply with the Convention requirements while examining similar complaints in the future.

b) publication and dissemination of the judgment

The translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of justice website at www.justice.government.bg/

The translation of the judgment will be sent to the competent national authorities.

No other measures inc. any legislative amendments seem to be necessary for execution of the judgment.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17025
Breukhoven against Czech Republic

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 44438/06, judgment of 21 July 2011, final on 21 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)773F);

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)773F);

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.

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme en l’affaire no 44438/06 – Breukhoven c. République tchèque

Bilan d’action présenté par le Gouvernement tchèque le 19 juillet 2012

Dans son arrêt du 21 juillet 2011 en l’affaire Breukhoven c. République tchèque, la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme a constaté la violation du droit du requérant à l’audition des témoins garanti par l’article 6 § 3 lettre d) de la Convention dans le cadre des poursuites dirigées contre le requérant en 2005. L’arrêt est devenu définitif le 21 octobre 2011 en vertu de l’article 44 § 2 de la Convention.

Le présent bilan a pour objet d’informer le Comité des ministres des mesures individuelles et générales d’exécution de cet arrêt.

I. MESURES INDIVIDUELLES

Le Gouvernement rappelle que dans son arrêt du 21 juillet 2011, la Cour a statué que le constat de violation de la Convention représentait une satisfaction suffisante du préjudice moral subi par le requérant et a rejeté la demande de satisfaction équitable pour le surplus.

La Cour a noté également que le requérant aurait la possibilité de demander la réouverture de la procédure devant la Cour constitutionnelle (§ 74 de l’arrêt). Or, d’après les informations du Gouvernement, le requérant ne s’est pas prévalu d’une telle possibilité dans le délai de six mois à partir de la date où l’arrêt en question est devenu définitif, imparti par la loi sur la Cour constitutionnelle.

Ceci étant dit, le Gouvernement est persuadé qu’aucune mesure individuelle ne semble plus s’imposer dans le cas du requérant.

II. MESURES GÉNÉRALES

S’agissant du problème qui était au centre de la violation constatée par la Cour dans cette affaire, le Gouvernement trouve qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de prendre des mesures au niveau général.

En regardant de près les décisions des juridictions internes – surtout de la Cour constitutionnelle – et de la Cour elle-même, on s’aperçoit que les juridictions internes ont été très bien conscientes du fait que – en utilisant les dépositions des victimes F. D., N. D. et V. D. pour condamner le requérant en tant que l’auteur d’un crime très sérieux du traite des êtres humains – les droits de la défense du requérant se sont trouvés limités d’une manière non négligeable. La Cour constitutionnelle tchèque a même expressément relatés les principes de la jurisprudence pertinente de la Cour en la matière (§ 7 de la décision du 26 juin 2008 ; voir aussi d’autres décisions de la Cour constitutionnelle, par exemple décision no II. ÚS 2399/09 du 30 août 2011, arrêt no III. ÚS 499/04 du 9 février 2006 et arrêt no IV. ÚS 538/03 du 11 octobre 2004). Il n’y a qu’une seule différence entre les points de vue des juridictions nationales et celui de la Cour dans la présente affaire : les juridictions nationales étaient d’avis que les dépositions contestées des victimes F. D., N. D. et V. D. n’étaient pas les seules preuves auxquelles reposait la condamnation du requérant (voir §§ 24, 26 et 29 de l’arrêt), tandis que la Cour a expliqué que tel n’était pas le cas vu que les autres preuves ne concernaient pas directement les éléments constitutifs du crime du traite des êtres humains (voir §§ 50-54 de l’arrêt).

Par conséquent, l’affaire Breukhoven n’est qu’un cas d’espèce et il ne s’impose pas d’en tirer de conclusions générales quant à la pratique des juridictions tchèques relative à l’observation du droit des accusés d’auditionner les témoins dans le cadre des procédures pénales.

Finalement, le ministère de la Justice a publié – comme d’habitude – la traduction de l’arrêt Breukhoven en langue tchèque sur son site internet (portal.justice.cz).

III. CONCLUSION

Le Gouvernement estime que la République tchèque s’est acquittée de toutes les obligations en vue d’exécuter l’arrêt de la Cour en l’affaire Breukhoven c. République tchèque.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17126
Kaura against Finland

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No° 40350/05, judgment of 23 June 2009, final on 23 September 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 violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1040E);

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)1040E);

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

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

Respondent State

Finland

Application no.

40350/05

Name

Kaura

Judgement

23/06/2009

Final

23/09/2009

Violation of the Convention

Art. 6 § 1

Unfairness of administrative proceedings due to a refusal by the Insurance Court to hold an oral hearing. The proceedings concerned the applicant’s civil rights and obligations initiated by him in 2000–2005 against the authorities' refusal to pay him unemployment benefit because he had failed to respond promptly to a potential employer.

Art. 6 § 1

Excessive length of the same administrative proceedings, which started on 26 October 2000 when the applicant appealed to the Unemployment Appeal Board and ended on 2 June 2005 when the Insurance Court delivered a final decision in the case.

Type

Leading case

Individual measures

    Just satisfaction

    1. Just satisfaction, in total EUR 5,915.40, has been paid by the Government.

    Other measures

    2. The proceedings in question have completed. Further, the re-opening of the domestic proceedings is possible under national legislation. No other individual measure appears necessary.

General Measures

    1. In general, the Insurance Court has the possibility to hold an oral hearing. Under section 38, subsection 1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (Act No. 586/1996, as amended by Act No. 433/1999), an administrative court shall conduct an oral hearing if a private party so requests (see §36 of the judgment). According to section 39, subsection 4 of the Unemployment Security Act (Act No. 602/1984, as amended by Act No. 301/1999), in force at the relevant time, the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act applies also to the proceedings before the Unemployment Appeal Board (see §15 of the judgment). The violation in this case arose from an isolated decision by the Insurance Court to reject the applicant’s request and not to hold a hearing. The European Court found that, the question of the credibility of the statements of the persons involved could not, as a matter of fair hearing, be properly determined without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the applicant as well as the employer (§37 of the judgment).

Dissemination and publication

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

    3. In relation to the violation concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings, see Vilho Eskelinen and others v Finland (63235/00).

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

Conclusions of the Government

    The measures adopted are capable of preventing similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17227
R.H. against Finland

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 34165/05, judgment of 2 June 2009, final on 2 September 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)1041E);

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)1041E);

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

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

Respondent State

Finland

Application no.

34165/05

Name

R.H.

Judgement

02/06/2009

Final

02/09/2009

Violation of the Convention

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant in 2002–2004, as the Appeal Court failed to make a full examination of the case or to organise an oral hearing, but used instead a so-called «filtering procedure» based on Chapter 26, sections 2 and 2a of the Code of Judicial Procedure (violation of Article 6§1).
The European Court found that in the circumstances of the case, the credibility of the statements of the persons involved could not have been properly determined by the Appeal Court without a direct assessment of such evidence.

Type

Leading case.

Individual measures

Just satisfaction

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction with respect to non-pecuniary damage.

Other measures

Re-opening of domestic proceedings is available under the Finnish legislation (Chapter 31, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure). Consequently, no other individual measure is considered necessary.

General measures

Under Chapter 26, Section 15, of the Code on Judicial Procedure, the Appeal Court shall hold an oral hearing if the credibility of the testimony admitted in the District Court is an issue (see §34 of the European Court’s judgment). The violation in this case arose from an isolated decision of the Court of Appeal to apply the filtering procedure and to reject the request for an oral hearing (see § 11 of the judgment).

Publication and dissemination

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

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

Government’s conclusion

The measures adopted are capable of preventing similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17328
Baccichetti against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 22584/06, judgment of 18 February 2010, final on 18 May 2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2011)1114F);

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)1114F);

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.

Baccichetti contre France (n°22584/06)

Arrêt du 18 février 2010 devenu définitif le 18 mai 2010

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une violation du principe du contradictoire à l’occasion d’une procédure disciplinaire diligentée à l’encontre du requérant (violation de l’article 6§1).

Selon la Cour, le défaut de communication d’un pré-rapport défavorable au requérant, dont le conseil de l’ordre des médecins avait pris connaissance avant de rendre sa décision et dont il n’est pas certain qu’il n’ait pas eu d’influence sur la décision du conseil de l’ordre, constituait une violation du principe du contradictoire.

      I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué au requérant une satisfaction équitable au titre des frais et dépens d’un montant de 2000 euros. Le principal a été payé les 26 août 2010 et le 13 septembre 2011. Des intérêts moratoires ont été versés le 13 septembre 2011.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Dans son arrêt, la Cour a indiqué "qu’aucun lien de causalité ne se trouve établi entre la violation de l’article 6 de la Convention et le préjudice matériel allégué par le requérant.". Elle a par conséquent rejeté la demande d'indemnisation au titre du préjudice matériel formulé par le requérant. Elle a par ailleurs estimé que le préjudice moral subi par l’intéressé était suffisamment réparé par le constat de la violation.

Compte tenu de cette motivation et au vu des circonstances particulières de l’espèce, le gouvernement est d'avis qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n'est requise dans cette affaire.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

L’arrêt a été diffusé 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 été également publié à l’observatoire du droit européen de la Cour de cassation (bulletin n° 29, janvier-février 2010).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Le Gouvernement estime que cette décision ne nécessite pas d’autres mesures générales, compte-tenu, d’une part, du caractère très particulier des faits ayant conduit au constat de la violation et, d'autre part, des mesures prises par la diffusion et la publication de l’arrêt de la Cour pour prévenir des violations similaires de l’article 6 de la Convention.

En conséquence, le Gouvernement considère que l’arrêt a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17429
Bowler International Unit against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 1946/06, judgment of 23 July 2009, final on 23 October 2009)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)683F);

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)683F);

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.

Bowler International Unit contre France (n°1466/07)

Arrêt du 23 juillet 2009 devenu définitif le 23 octobre 2009

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

L'affaire concerne l’atteinte portée aux droits de propriété dans le cadre des confiscations de marchandises opérées par l’administration des douanes. La requérante, la société Bowler International Unit, organisa en 1998 le transport par camion de 276 cartons de poupées d’Espagne vers le Royaume-Uni. Les services des douanes français trouvèrent dans cette cargaison 17 cartons de cannabis (plus de 520 kilos) et saisirent les cartons de poupées au motif qu’ils avaient servi à masquer la fraude, alors que l’administration reconnaissait la bonne foi de la société.

La société requérante soutenait que cette procédure avait porté atteinte à son droit au respect de ses biens au sens de l’article 1 du Protocole no 1 (protection de la propriété) à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et qu’elle n’avait pas été conforme à l’article 6 § 1 (droit à un procès équitable) de la Convention.

La Cour conclut à la violation de l’article 1 du Protocole no 1, Bowler International Unit n’ayant disposé d’aucun recours lui permettant de contester utilement la mesure qui lui a été imposée : la seule action possible - contre l’auteur de l’infraction - ne constituait pas une possibilité adéquate d’exposer sa cause aux autorités, qui avaient reconnu sa bonne foi.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué à la requérante une somme de 15 000 € en réparation de son préjudice matériel et 16 000 euros au titre des frais et dépens. La somme principale d’un montant de 31 000 euros a été versée au requérant le 8 octobre 2009.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Il ressort de l’arrêt de la Cour que les cartons de poupées ont été restitués à la société requérante. Le préjudice matériel subi par la requérante ayant été indemnisé par la satisfaction équitable, le gouvernement estime qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est nécessaire dans cette affaire.

 

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

Cette décision de la Cour a fait l’objet d’une note, en date du 23 octobre 2009, du sous-directeur des affaires juridiques, du contentieux, des contrôles et de la lutte contre la fraude du ministère du Budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat. Cette note a été adressée à l’ensemble des directeurs de la direction générale des douanes et droits indirects du même ministère. Elle détaille les faits ainsi que le contenu de l’arrêt du 23 juillet 2009 et précise ses conséquences en matière de saisie des marchandises ayant servi à masquer la fraude lorsqu’elles appartiennent à un tiers de bonne foi. Cet arrêt a aussi été publié sur le site de l’Observatoire du droit européen de la Cour de cassation et est disponible sur le site légifrance (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Droit-europeen/Actualite/Jurisprudence/Jurisprudence-2009).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

L’article 376 du Code des douanes en vigueur au moment des faits dispose :

« 1. Les objets saisis ou confisqués ne peuvent être revendiqués par les propriétaires, ni le prix, qu'il soit consigné ou non, réclamé par les créanciers même privilégiés, sauf leur recours contre les auteurs de la fraude.

2. Les délais d'appel, de tierce opposition et de vente expirés, toutes répétitions et actions sont non recevables. »

Dans son arrêt, la Cour a considéré que : « S’agissant du recours que peut exercer le propriétaire de bonne foi en pareille situation, il ressort de la législation qu’il est limité à une action contre l’auteur principal. La Cour observe par conséquent qu’il s’agit d’un problème législatif de caractère général.(…) En effet la cour considère que l’instauration d’un mécanisme dérogatoire lorsque le propriétaire est de bonne foi, prévu dans d’autres cas par la législation nationale ne saurait, en tant que tel, porter atteinte aux intérêts de l’Etat. » (§ 46). Elle a considéré que l’ingérence dans le droit au respect des biens n’avait pas ménagé un juste équilibre entre l’intérêt général de la communauté et les impératifs de sauvegarde des droits fondamentaux de l’individu et conclut à la violation de l’article 1 du protocole 1.

Par une décision en date du 13 janvier 2012, le conseil Constitutionnel saisi d’une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité a jugé que « Considérant, toutefois, qu’en privant les propriétaires de la possibilité de revendiquer, en toute hypothèse, les objets saisis ou confisqués, les dispositions de l’article 376 du code des douanes portent au droit de propriété une atteinte disproportionnée au but poursuivi ». Par conséquent il a déclaré l’article 376 du code des douanes contraire à la Constitution et a reporté la date d’abrogation au 1er janvier 2013, afin que le législateur puisse remédier à l’inconstitutionnalité de cet article.

L’article 61 de la loi 2012-387 du 22 mars 2012 modifie l’article 376 du code des douanes. Il dispose dorénavant que :

« 1. Les objets saisis ou confisqués ne peuvent être revendiqués par les propriétaires, ni le prix, qu'il soit consigné ou non, réclamé par les créanciers même privilégiés, sauf leur recours contre les auteurs de la fraude.

1 bis. Toutefois, lorsque la marchandise ayant servi à masquer la fraude a été saisie, la mainlevée est offerte, sans caution ni consignation, au propriétaire de bonne foi non poursuivi en application du présent code. Cette mainlevée est subordonnée au remboursement des frais éventuellement engagés par l'administration pour assurer la garde et la conservation de la marchandise.

1 ter. Par dérogation au 1 bis, aucune mainlevée n'est proposée lorsque la marchandise ayant servi à masquer la fraude a été détériorée en raison de son utilisation à cette fin.

2. Les délais d'appel, de tierce opposition et de vente expirés, toutes répétitions et actions sont non recevables. »

Les mesures générales ainsi adoptées permettront d'éviter qu’une violation similaire de la Convention ne se produise.

Le Gouvernement considère par conséquent que cet arrêt a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17530
Chatellier against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 34658/07, judgment of 31 March 2011, final on 30 June 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)954F);

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)954F);

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.

Chatellier contre France (n°34658/07)

Arrêt du 31 mars 2011 devenu définitif le 30 juin 2011

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une violation du principe d’accès à la cour d’appel pour obtenir un examen en fait et en droit de la décision de première instance (violation de l’article 6§1).

Le requérant fut condamné en 2006 en première instance au remboursement d’un prêt bancaire et l’exécution provisoire de ce jugement fut ordonné. Il fit appel de ce jugement, mais la banque obtint la radiation de son appel en raison de l’inexécution par le requérant de la décision exécutoire de première instance. M. Chatellier faisait valoir devant la Cour qu’il avait indiqué devant la Cour d’appel que ses moyens financiers ne lui permettaient pas d’exécuter la décision de première instance et se plaignait de la violation de l’article 6§1 de la Convention.

La Cour a estimé légitimes les buts poursuivis par la disposition législative subordonnant l’appel à l’exécution du jugement de première instance. Toutefois, en l’espèce, elle a considéré que la Cour d’appel s’était fondée à tort sur une présomption de fraude fiscale de la part du requérant qui n’avait jamais été établie pour radier l’affaire. Elle a jugé que dans cette affaire, la disproportion entre la situation matérielle du requérant et les sommes dues au titre de l’exécution du jugement de première instance était établie et a dès lors considéré que la décision de radiation du rôle de la Cour d’appel violait l’article 6§1 de la Convention.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué au requérant une satisfaction équitable de 15 000 euros au titre du dommage moral et de 5 980 euros au titre des frais et dépens d’un montant. Ces sommes ont été consignées le 20 septembre 2011 auprès de la Caisse de dépôts et de consignations, à défaut pour le requérant d’avoir répondu aux nombreuses demandes du gouvernement en vue d’obtenir les documents nécessaires au versement de la somme à l’intéressé.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Dans son arrêt, la Cour a relevé que « la seule base à retenir pour l’octroi d’une satisfaction équitable réside en l’espèce dans le fait que le requérant n’a pas pu jouir devant la Cour d’appel des garanties de l’article 6 ». Elle a également rappelé « qu’elle ne saurait spéculer sur ce qu’eût été l’issue du procès dans le cas contraire ». Elle a par conséquent rejeté la demande d'indemnisation au titre du préjudice matériel formulée par le requérant. Le gouvernement français estime que, conformément à la Convention et notamment son article 6, la réouverture de la procédure « civile » n'est pas envisageable dans cette affaire compte tenu des effets juridiques produits par la décision juridictionnelle nationale et du nécessaire respect du principe de la sécurité juridique des autres parties au procès.

Concernant la question d’une éventuelle perte de chance pour le requérant, il considère que, vu le raisonnement de la Cour sur le fond et à l'appui de sa décision sur la satisfaction équitable, ainsi que les circonstances spécifiques de la cause, le requérant ne semble pas avoir subi de conséquences des violations constatées qui n'auraient pas été compensées par l'octroi d'une satisfaction équitable. Par conséquent, aucune mesure individuelle additionnelle n'apparaît nécessaire.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion
L’arrêt a été publié à l’observatoire du droit européen de la Cour de cassation (bulletin de mars- avril 2011) et ainsi diffusé à l’ensemble des juridictions.

2. Sur les autres mesures générales
Le Gouvernement estime que cette décision ne nécessite pas d’autres mesures générales, compte-tenu d’une part caractère très particulier des faits ayant conduit au constat de la violation et aux mesures prises, par la diffusion et la publication de l’arrêt de la Cour, pour prévenir des violations similaires de l’article 6 de la Convention.

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17631
Mancel and Branquart against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 22349/06, judgment of 24 June 2010, final on 22 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)961F);

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)961F);

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.

Mancel et Branquart contre France (n°22349/06)

Arrêt du 24 juin 2010 devenu définitif le 22 novembre 2010

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Invoquant l’article 6 § 1, MM. Mancel et Branquart soutenaient que la formation de la Cour de cassation ayant confirmé leur condamnation pénale n’était pas impartiale, du fait que sept juges sur neuf avaient déjà statué dans le cadre d’un premier pourvoi dans l’affaire.

La Cour a estimé que suite au premier pourvoi, la Cour de cassation s'était prononcée au regard des éléments factuels sur la réalité de l’infraction de prise illégale d'intérêts reprochée aux requérants, en caractérisant à la fois l’élément matériel et moral du délit. Suite au deuxième pourvoi, la Cour de cassation avait été amenée une nouvelle fois à vérifier l’appréciation, par la cour d’appel de renvoi, des éléments constitutifs de l’infraction ce qui était de nature à créer des doutes justifiés chez les requérants sur l’impartialité de la Cour de cassation quant à sa décision prise dans le cadre du second pourvoi.

Elle a par conséquent jugé qu’il y avait violation de l’article 6§1 de la Convention.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué à chaque requérant une satisfaction équitable de 3000 euros au titre des frais et dépens. Une somme de 3025.38 € a été versée à chaque requérant le 22 avril 2011, comprenant 25.38 euros payés au titre des intérêts moratoires.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

La Cour a indiqué qu'elle n'apercevait pas de lien de causalité entre la violation constatée et le dommage matériel allégué par les requérants. Elle a en conséquence rejeté leur demande à ce titre. S'agissant du dommage moral, elle l'a estimé "suffisamment réparé par le constat de violation" auquel elle est parvenue.

Les requérants ont par ailleurs eu la possibilité de demander le réexamen de leur affaire suite à l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, en vertu des articles L 626-1 et suivants du Code de procédure pénale.

En conséquence, le gouvernement estime avoir exécuté l’ensemble des mesures individuelles résultant de l’arrêt.

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 des Droits de l'Homme et les diffusent aux autorités concernées. Cet arrêt a été notamment communiqué au ministère de la Justice. Par ailleurs, il est également disponible par l’intermédiaire du site grand public d’accès au droit « Légifrance » et sur le site de la Cour de cassation (rubrique observatoire du Droit Européen).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Le fonctionnement des chambres civiles et criminelles de la Cour de cassation a évolué pour tenir compte de cette décision.

Conformément à l’article L. 431.6 du Code de l’organisation judiciaire (créé postérieurement aux faits de l'espèce par l'article 1 de l'ordonnance n°2006-673 du 8 juin 2006), dans le cas où l’arrêt de Cour de renvoi est attaqué sur les mêmes moyens que la décision rendue par la juridiction de renvoi, le renvoi devant l’assemblée plénière de la Cour de cassation doit être ordonné. Il est alors de règle que la formation de jugement ne comprend aucun des magistrats ayant siégé lors de l’examen du premier pourvoi.

Lorsque les moyens utilisés pour contester l’arrêt sont différents de ceux présentés dans le cadre du premier pourvoi, la Cour de cassation s’est engagée à ce que les chambres statuent dans une composition ne comprenant pas les conseillers qui ont siégé lors de l’examen du premier pourvoi notamment dans les cas où les questions soulevées conduisent à examiner une question de droit proche de celle qui a été déjà soumise à la Cour ou si le moyen soulevé concerne des faits sur lesquels la Cour a déjà porté son appréciation.

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)17732
Poirot against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 29938/07, judgment of 15 December 2011, final on 15 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)901F);

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)901F);

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.

Poirot contre France (n°29938/07)

Arrêt du 15 décembre 2011 devenu définitif le 15 mars 2012

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte au droit d’accès à un tribunal.

Dans le cadre d’une plainte pour agression sexuelle, la requérante avait formé un appel de l’ordonnance de renvoi de l’affaire devant le tribunal correctionnel, estimant que les faits en cause relevaient d’un crime et devaient par conséquent être jugés par une Cour d’assises. L’appel avait été rejeté au motif que l’acte d’appel ne mentionnait pas explicitement le motif d’appel.

La Cour a constaté que l’article 186-3 du code de procédure pénale n’imposait pas à la requérante de préciser formellement son motif d’appel. Elle a estimé que les autorités judiciaires avaient en l’espèce appliqué les règles procédurales de manière trop formelle et qu’elles avaient par conséquent porté atteinte au droit d’accès de la requérante à un tribunal. Elle a dès lors 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 d’un montant de 3 000 euros au titre du dommage moral et de 500 euros au titre des frais et dépens. La satisfaction équitable a été versée à la requérante le 4 avril 2012.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Par un arrêt définitif du 3 juillet 2007, le tribunal correctionnel a relaxé l’accusé. La requérante a demandé à la Cour une réparation « à titre symbolique » du dommage moral qu’elle estimait avoir subi et la Cour lui a alloué 3 000 euros à ce titre (voir ci-dessus). Le gouvernement estime que le présent arrêt ne nécessite aucune autre mesure individuelle d’exécution que le paiement de la satisfaction équitable.

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 : Revue de science criminelle 2012 p. 142 ; D. actualités 5 janvier 2012 ; Jurisclasseur procédure pénale).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Ainsi que la Cour l'a relevé dans son arrêt (§ 24), la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation a évolué depuis les faits de l’espèce. Ainsi, par un arrêt en date du 23 février 2011 (n°1081.767, Bull crim 2011, n° 38), la Cour de cassation n’exige plus qu’il soit fait mention expresse de l’article 186-3 du code de procédure pénale mais se réfère uniquement à la nécessité que la partie civile ait exprimé son opposition à la correctionnalisation dans un acte de procédure.

Le Gouvernement estime que l'exécution de cet arrêt ne requiert pas d’autres mesures générales.

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)17833
Patoux against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 35079/06, judgment of 14 April 2011, final on 14 July 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)471F);

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)471F);

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.

Patoux contre France (n°35079/06)

Arrêt du 14 avril 2011 devenu définitif le 14 juillet 2011

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une violation de l’article 5§4 de la Convention qui garantit que toute personne privée de sa liberté par arrestation ou détention a le droit d’introduire un recours devant un tribunal, afin qu’il statue à bref délai sur la légalité de sa détention.

La Cour a considéré que le juge des libertés et de la détention, qui a mis 46 jours pour se prononcer sur la demande de mainlevée de la mesure d’hospitalisation d’office ordonnée par le Préfet de l'Oise à l'égard de Mme Patoux, n'avait, ce faisant, pas respecté l'exigence de "bref délai" posée par l'article 5§4. La Cour a pris en compte le fait que l'audition de la requérante s'était déroulée plus de vingt jours après la saisine du juge des libertés et que la seconde audition s'était tenue 7 jours après le dépôt du rapport d'expertise qui avait été ordonné.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué à Mme Patoux une satisfaction équitable d’un montant de 5 000 euros au titre du préjudice moral et de 2 500 euros au titre des frais et dépens. La somme totale de 7 521.58 euros, dont 21.58 euros au titre des intérêts moratoires, a été payée le 28 octobre 2010.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Dans son arrêt, la Cour a indiqué qu'elle n'apercevait pas de lien de causalité entre la violation constatée et le dommage matériel allégué. Elle a ainsi rejeté la demande formée à ce titre. Quant au dommage moral, il a été réparé par l'octroi de la satisfaction équitable précitée. Le gouvernement estime en conséquence qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est 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 a été notamment communiqué au ministère de la justice et publié à l’Observatoire du droit européen de la Cour de cassation. Par ailleurs, il est disponible par l’intermédiaire du site grand public d’accès au droit Légifrance. Il a également été publié dans de nombreuses revues juridiques (Revue de la Semaine Juridique Administrations et Collectivités territoriales n° 17, 26 Avril 2011 ; Droit de la famille n° 6, Juin 2011).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

La loi du 5 juillet 2011 relative aux droits et à la protection des personnes faisant l’objet de soins psychiatriques et aux modalités de leur prise en charge ainsi que le décret du 18 juillet 2011 relatif à la procédure judiciaire de mainlevée ou de contrôle des mesures de soins psychiatriques ont modifié les dispositions du Code de santé publique afin de garantir l’examen à bref délai par le juge des libertés et de la détention des demandes de mainlevée.

L’article 1 de la loi du 5 juillet modifiant l’article L. 3211-12 du code de santé publique dispose en effet que « le juge des libertés et de la détention dans le ressort duquel se situe l'établissement d'accueil peut être saisi, à tout moment, aux fins d'ordonner, à bref délai, la mainlevée immédiate d'une mesure de soins psychiatriques ». L’article R 3211-16 du décret du 18 juillet 2011 précise que « L'ordonnance du juge est rendue dans un délai de douze jours à compter de l'enregistrement de la requête au greffe. Ce délai est porté à vingt-cinq jours si une expertise est ordonnée. » Par ailleurs, dans les cas où une expertise est nécessaire, les experts remettent leur rapport dans le délai fixé par le juge, qui ne peut excéder quinze jours suivant leur désignation (article L. 3211-13 du code de la santé publique). Passé ce délai de 15 jours, le juge statue immédiatement.

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)17934
Baudoin against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 35935/03, judgment of 18 November 2010, final on 18 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 violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)973F);

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)973F);

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.

BAUDOIN contre France (n°35935/03)

Arrêt du 18 novembre 2010, définitif le 18 février 2010

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une mesure d’hospitalisation d’office qui n’a pas été effectuée « selon les voies légales » sur la période comprise entre le 21 octobre 2004 et le 9 novembre 2004, en violation du l’article 5§1 de la Convention. Dans le cas d’espèce, le requérant malgré une décision du juge administratif annulant la mesure d’internement, n’a pas pu obtenir du juge judiciaire la mainlevée de la mesure d’hospitalisation. A l’époque, le juge judiciaire n’était en effet pas habilité à examiner les conditions de validité des arrêtés d’hospitalisation d’office, cette compétence relevant du juge administratif ; le juge judiciaire ne pouvait ordonner en conséquence la libération immédiate de la personne internée que dans l’hypothèse d’une voie de fait. La Cour constate ainsi que « dans les circonstances très particulières de l’espèce, l’articulation entre la compétence du juge judiciaire et celle du juge administratif quant aux voies de recours offertes n’a pas permis au requérant d’obtenir une décision d’un tribunal pouvant statuer « sur la légalité de sa détention et ordonner sa libération si la détention est illégale ». Elle conclut à la violation de l’article 5§4 de la Convention dans la mesure où il n’était pas possible de considérer la procédure devant le juge judiciaire comme un recours effectif, et que les procédures introduites par le requérant n’ont pas respecté l’obligation d’examen « à bref délai » (parmi les trois procédures judiciaires engagées par le requérant, la plus courte a duré plus de quatre mois).

I. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable et mesures individuelles

a) Satisfaction équitable

La somme due au titre de la satisfaction équitable, à savoir 23 000 euros, dont 20 000 au titre du dommage moral et 3000 euros au titre des frais et dépens, a été versée au requérant le 5 mai 2011, soit dans le délai imparti au gouvernement.

b) Autres mesures individuelles

La mesure d’hospitalisation d’office à l’origine des violations de l’article 5 §§ 1 et 4 a pris fin le 9 novembre 2004. Le Gouvernement estime par conséquent qu’aucune mesure individuelle autre que le paiement de la satisfaction équitable n’est nécessaire à l’exécution de l’arrêt.

II. Mesures générales

a) Sur la diffusion

L’arrêt a été publié sur le site internet de la Cour de Cassation dans la rubrique de l’Observatoire du droit européen.

b) Autres mesures générales

Sur l’absence de recours effectif

Le législateur a décidé de mettre fin à l’éclatement du contentieux entre le juge administratif et le juge judiciaire par la loi n°2011-803 du 5 juillet 2011 relative aux droits et à la protection des personnes faisant l’objet de soins psychiatriques et aux modalités de leur prise en charge, qui prévoit que la régularité des décisions administratives ne pourra être contestée que devant le juge judiciaire.

L’article L 3216-1 du code de la Santé publique modifié par l’article 7 de la loi du 5 juillet 2011 dispose que : « La régularité des décisions administratives prises en application des chapitres II à IV du présent titre ne peut être contestée que devant le juge judiciaire. Le juge des libertés et de la détention connaît des contestations mentionnées au premier alinéa du présent article dans le cadre des instances introduites en application des articles L. 3211-12 et L. 3211-12-1. Dans ce cas, l’irrégularité affectant une décision administrative mentionnée au premier alinéa du présent article n’entraîne la mainlevée de la mesure que s’il en est résulte une atteinte aux droits de la personne qui en faisait l’objet. »

Afin de laisser le temps au juge judiciaire d’être formé sur les questions de légalité externe qui relèvent aujourd’hui de la compétence du juge administratif, le législateur a prévu une entrée en vigueur différée de la disposition de l’article L 3216-1 du code précité concernant l’unification du contentieux au 1er janvier 2013.
Sur la nécessité en cas de privation de liberté de garantir un examen « à bref délai » (article 5§4 de la convention)

L’article 1 alinéa 4 de la loi du 5 juillet 2011 modifie l’article 3211-12 du code de la santé publique afin que le juge judiciaire puisse être saisi, à bref délai, aux fins d’ordonner la mainlevée immédiate d’une mesure de soins psychiatriques. Il dispose : « Le juge des libertés et de la détention dans le ressort duquel se situe l’établissement d’accueil peut être saisi, à tout moment, aux fins d’ordonner, à bref délai, la mainlevée immédiate d’une mesure de soins psychiatriques prononcée en application des chapitres II à IV du présent titre ou de l’article 706-135 du code de procédure pénale, quelle qu’en soit la forme. »

Le décret n°2011-846 du 18 juillet 2011 relatif à la procédure judiciaire de mainlevée ou de contrôle des mesures de soins psychiatriques modifie l’article R 3211-16 et précise l'échéance dans laquelle le juge doit rendre sa décision : « L’ordonnance du juge est rendue dans un délai de douze jours à compter de l’enregistrement de la requête au greffe. Ce délai est porté à vingt-cinq jours si une expertise est ordonnée. »

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)18035
Walchli against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 35787/03, judgment of 26 July 2007, final on 26 October 2007)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)968F);

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)968F);

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.

Walchli contre France (n° 35787/03)

Arrêt du 26 juillet 2007 devenu définitif le 26 octobre 2007

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

L'affaire porte sur une violation de l'article 6§1 de la convention résultant de ce que le requérant n'a pas eu accès à un tribunal en vue de faire annuler les actes de la procédure d'information ayant mené à sa condamnation pénale. En effet, la requête déposée par son avocat en vue d'obtenir cette annulation fut rejetée par les juridictions internes pour non respect d'une condition de forme. Au vu des circonstances particulières de l'espèce, la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme a estimé que, sur ce point, les juridictions internes avaient fait preuve d'un formalisme excessif.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

I.1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué au requérant une satisfaction équitable d’un montant de 3 000 euros au titre du dommage moral et de 3 000 € au titre des frais et dépens. Cette somme a été payée le 25 mars 2008. Des intérêts moratoires ont été versés le 17 novembre 2008.

I.2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

La Cour a rejeté la demande d'indemnisation du préjudice matériel du requérant, qui sollicitait le remboursement des amendes auxquelles il avait été condamné, en indiquant qu'elle ne saurait spéculer sur le résultat auquel la procédure aurait abouti si la violation de l'article 6§1 n'avait pas eu lieu. En application des articles 626-1 s du code de procédure pénale, le requérant avait la possibilité de demander le réexamen de la décision pénale en cause. Le gouvernement estime que le présent arrêt ne nécessite pas d’autres mesures individuelles d’exécution.

II. Mesures de caractère général

L'arrêt de la Cour a fait l’objet très rapidement - dès le 15 septembre 2007 - d’une large publicité auprès des professionnels du droit, de par sa publication au Bulletin d’information de la Cour de cassation (BICC), lequel est largement diffusé tant au sein des juridictions qu’auprès des avocats abonnés à cette publication. L'arrêt a également été publié sur le site internet de la Cour de cassation.

Le dysfonctionnement à l'origine du constat de violation est resté isolé au sein de la juridiction concernée (Cour d'appel de Riom), dans laquelle l’attention des professionnels concernés a été attirée sur cette affaire.

Au-delà, la formation générale des greffiers à l’Ecole nationale des greffes de Dijon, ainsi que la sélection des greffiers affectés en chambre de l’instruction, sont de nature à prévenir ce type d’erreur : la formation initiale théorique est complétée par des stages en juridiction et notamment par un stage à la cour d’appel d’une durée de 3 semaines, qui permet aux élèves de se familiariser avec le travail du greffier de la chambre de l’instruction.

De même, le degré de formation et de compétence des avocats qui sont, le plus souvent, à l’origine des requêtes en nullité d’actes de la procédure d’instruction doit permettre la mise en œuvre de cette procédure sans nouvelle erreur

    Le gouvernement estime en conséquence que l'arrêt a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)18136
Mor against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 28198/09, judgment of 15 December 2011, final on 15 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)903F);

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)903F);

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.

Mor contre France (n°8198/09)

Arrêt du 15 décembre 2011 devenu définitif le 15 mars 2012

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte au droit à la liberté d’expression de la requérante, avocate, qui avait été déclarée coupable de violation du secret professionnel pour avoir divulgué à la presse le contenu d’un rapport d’expertise remis au juge dans le cadre d’une information judiciaire ouverte pour homicide involontaire à la suite d’une plainte qu’elle avait déposée au nom de plusieurs victimes.

La Cour a constaté que la requérante n’avait pas été sanctionnée pour avoir divulgué un rapport confidentiel aux médias, mais pour avoir divulgué des informations qui y étaient contenues, alors que les médias étaient déjà en possession de toute ou partie du rapport. Elle a estimé que les déclarations de la requérante s’inscrivaient dans un débat d’intérêt général et que cette dernière s'était cantonnée au commentaire d’informations déjà diffusées par un article de presse. Tout en rappelant que la connaissance publique de faits couverts par le secret professionnel qui porte atteinte à leur confidentialité ne décharge pas pour autant l’avocat de son devoir de prudence à l’égard du secret de l’instruction en cours, la Cour a jugé qu’en l’espèce la protection du secret professionnel ne constituait pas un motif suffisant pour déclarer la requérante coupable de violation du secret professionnel. Elle en a conclu 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 à la requérante une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage moral d’un montant de 5 000 euros. Cette somme, assortie des intérêts de retard, a été versée à la requérante le 30 août 2012.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

La requérante a été dispensée de peine par les tribunaux nationaux et a fait l’objet d’une condamnation civile d’un montant d’un euro. S'agissant de la question du casier judiciaire, le gouvernement français renvoie aux développements contenus dans la résolution CM/ResDH(2011)57 adoptée par la Comité des Ministres le 8 juin 2011 concernant les arrêts Paturel contre France et autres

Le gouvernement estime que le présent arrêt ne nécessite aucune autre mesure individuelle d’exécution que le paiement de la satisfaction équitable.

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 est résumé sur ce site au titre des arrêts rendus contre la France en 2011. Il a été également publié et commenté dans de nombreuses revues juridiques (notamment : Procédures 2012, comm. 155 ; Dr. pén. 2012, chron., 3 ; JCP G 2012, 387 ; JCP G 2012, 87 ; AJDA 2012 p.143).

Le gouvernement français se réfère également aux informations contenues dans la résolution CM/ResDH(2011)57 précitée.

L'ensemble des mesures de diffusion et publication ainsi prises sont de nature à prévenir toute violation semblable de la Convention. Le Gouvernement estime que 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)18237
Vernes against France

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

(Application No. 30183/06, judgment of 20 January 2011, final on 20 April 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)1081F);

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)1081F);

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.

Vernes contre France (n°30183/06)

Arrêt du 20 janvier 2011 devenu définitif le 20 avril 2011

Bilan d’action du gouvernement français

Cette affaire concerne une procédure disciplinaire au terme de laquelle le requérant a été condamné par la Commission des opérations de bourse (COB) à une interdiction définitive d’exercer son activité dans le domaine de la finance. La décision a été confirmée par le Conseil d'Etat, compétent pour connaître des recours contre les décisions de sanction infligées par ladite commission.

La Cour a constaté des violations du droit au procès équitable (article 6§1 de la Convention) en raison :

- de l’impossibilité pour le requérant de solliciter la tenue d’un débat public devant la COB ;
- de l'impossibilité de connaître l’identité des personnes qui composaient la formation de jugement qui l’a jugé;
- de la présence du commissaire du gouvernement au délibéré du Conseil d'Etat.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué au requérant une satisfaction équitable d’un montant de 15 000 euros au titre des frais et dépens. Cette satisfaction équitable a été versée au requérant le 27 juin 2011.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Le requérant a sollicité auprès de la Cour le paiement de un euro en réparation de son préjudice moral. Dans son arrêt, la Cour a estimé que le dommage subi par ce dernier était suffisamment réparé par les constats de violations de l’article 6§1 de la Convention.

Dans ces conditions, aucune autre mesure individuelle d’exécution de cet arrêt n’est nécessaire.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. 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 a été notamment communiqué au ministère des finances et publié à l’Observatoire du droit européen de la Cour de cassation (bulletin n° 36). Par ailleurs, il est également disponible par l’intermédiaire du site grand public d’accès au droit Légifrance.

2. Les autres mesures générales

- Sur la publicité des débats :

Ainsi que la Cour en a elle-même pris acte, la COB a modifié son règlement intérieur postérieurement aux faits à l’origine de la requête et permis à toute personne mise en cause de demander la tenue d’une séance publique. Cette possibilité a été reprise par l’autorité des marchés financiers, qui a succédé à la COB.

- Sur la composition de la formation de jugement:

La Cour a également pris acte que les modifications intervenues postérieurement à la procédure litigieuse permettent à la personne mise en cause de connaître l’identité des membres de la formation de jugement et d’en solliciter la récusation.

- Sur la présence du commissaire du gouvernement au délibéré:

Le gouvernement français renvoie sur ce point aux développements contenus dans la résolution finale Résolution CM/ResDH(2007)44.

L’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour ne nécessite aucune autre mesure générale.

En conséquence, le Gouvernement considère que l’arrêt a été exécuté.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)18338
Mohd and John against Greece

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Applications No. 11919/03 and 199/05, judgments of 27 April 2006 and of 10 May 2007,
final on 27 July 2006 and on 10 August 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 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 these cases concerns the unlawful detention of the applicants pending administrative expulsion (violation of article 5, paragraph 1 f) (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 applicants just satisfaction, where provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of

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

      - general measures preventing similar violations;

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

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)183

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Mohd and John against Greece

Introductory case summary

The cases concern the applicants’ unlawful detention in the Mohd case in the absence of an official deportation order. In addition, in the John case the applicant’s detention had been extended after the maximum period provided by law had elapsed. Both applicants had been detained pending administrative expulsion (violation of Article 5§1(f)).

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

JOHN

 

5 000 EUR

 

5 000 EUR

Paid on 06/11/2007

b) Individual measures

Mohd case: In 2003 the Council of State quashed the applicant’s administrative expulsion order. He requested no just satisfaction from the European Court, having reserved his right to do so under domestic law (§27 of judgment).

John case: The applicant was expelled from Greece to Nigeria (his country of origin) on 20/06/2004 (§17 of the judgment).The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non pecuniary damage

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

II. General measures

The European Court's judgments, translated into Greek, were transmitted to the Ministry of Justice and were further disseminated through the President and the General Commissioner of the Council of State to all authorities concerned

The authorities indicated that following the Court’s judgments, the national legislation (the Aliens Law) was amended several times, in line with the Court’s findings. In particular: (a) conditions under which aliens irregularly entering the country could be detained, pending administrative expulsion, as well as the maximum period of detention, were clearly defined in the law; (b) remedies allowing to contest expulsion orders or decisions ordering detention were introduced; (c) aliens detained pending expulsion will be allowed to be informed of the reasons of their detention in a language they understand; (d) procedures for access to a lawyer were facilitated (e) when for reasons of force majeure expulsion is not possible, the expulsion and detention will be suspended; (f) it will not be possible to extend detention when maximum period of detention elapses.

In addition, circulars were published by the Ministry of Public Order, highlightening the changes introduced by the amended law and focusing on the procedure to be followed regarding decisions for expulsion, the remedies provided against the latter, as well as the decision for detention and the cases when expulsion is prohibited.

Domestic courts’ case-law and administrative practice were aligned with Convention requirements following these amendments. Consequently no similar complaints of illegal detention have ever been reported/ recorded following these cases. Therefore, the shortcomings identified in the instant cases were remedied.

However, the new national legislative framework, as amended further to these judgments, was also found to be in violation of the Convention (group S.D.) on different grounds (unlawful detention with a view to expulsion since the applicant, as asylum seeker, could not be deported). The general measures in this respect are considered under the group S.D.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The government considers that no individual measures are required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)18439
Dimitras and others and Dimitras and others No. 2 against Greece

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Applications Nos. 42837/06, 3237/07, 3269/07, 35793/07, 6099/08 and 34207/08, 6365/09,
judgments of 3 June 2010 and of 3 November 2011, final on 3 September 2010 and on 3 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 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 unjustified interference with the applicants' freedom of religion (violation of article 9) and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the 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, in conditions not contested by them (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of

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

      - general measures preventing similar violations;

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

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)184

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

Dimitras and others and Dimitras and others No. 2 against Greece

Introductory case summary

The cases concern the unjustified interference with the applicants' freedom of religion due to the fact that on a number of occasions in 2006 and 2007, when taking an oath at criminal court hearings as witnesses, complainants or suspects, they had been obliged to reveal their religious convictions, in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration (instead of a religious oath). The Court noted that national legislation required individuals to give details of their religious beliefs if they did not want to be presumed as Orthodox Christians (violation of Article 9).

The cases also concern lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Dimitras and others

 

15 000 EUR

 

15 000 EUR

Paid on 08/12/2010

Dimitras and others No. 2

   

1 500 EUR

1 500 EUR

Paid on 02/05/2012

The just satisfaction has been paid in conditions apparently not contested by the applicants.

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non pecuniary damage only in the Dimitras and others case. The Court did not award any just satisfaction in the case of Dimitras and others No. 2. No other individual measure apart from the payment of just satisfaction was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers in the particular circumstances of the case.

II. General measures

1) Violation of Article 9

The European Court's judgment, translated into Greek, was widely disseminated to all competent judicial authorities and it was also published on the website of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gov. gr).

The authorities indicate that under a recent legislative amendment (introduced by Law No 4055/2012) it has been ensured that in the context of criminal proceedings one is not obliged to disclose his religious beliefs: Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure now stipulates that a witness appearing before a criminal court can, at his discretion and without other formalities, choose between taking a religious oath and making a solemn declaration. This measure has already been found to be in compliance with the Convention requirements, with reference to procedure of oath taking before civil courts (see paragraph 87 of the Dimitras and others judgment, paragraph 32 of Dimitras and others No. 2 judgment).

2) Violation of Article 13

The authorities indicate that since the abovementioned legislative amendments fully remedy the substantive violation found by the Court (of Article 9), violation of Article 13 has been absorbed by the general obligation imposed. It was therefore considered that no separate measures were necessary to prevent similar violations of Article 13.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The government considers that no other individual measure apart from the payment of just satisfaction is considered necessary in these cases, that the measures taken will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)18540
Tsirikakis, Hatzitakis and Karagiannis and others against Greece

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Applications No 46355/99, 48392/99 and 51354/99, judgments of 23 January 2003, 11 April 2002 and 16 January 2003, final on 9 July 2003, 11 July 2002 and 16 April 2003)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

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

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the violation of the applicants’ property rights in the context of land expropriation proceedings (violation of article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and the excessive length of civil proceedings (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

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

      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)185

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Tsirikakis, Hatzitakis and Karagiannis and others against Greece

Introductory case summary

The cases concern the violation of the applicants’ property rights on account of (a) receiving depreciated compensation for expropriation due to the authorities’ failure to take into account the lengthy national court proceedings concerning the applicants’ recognition as owners of the expropriated land, proceedings necessary for the payment of the amount of compensation fixed and (b) the applicants’ inability to use their property (Karagiannis), or the non-expropriated part of the property (Tsirikakis) during that lengthy period (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The cases also concern excessive length of civil proceedings (Tsirikakis and Karagiannis cases) (violation of Article 6, paragraph 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

TSIRIKAKIS

16 795 EUR

35 000 EUR

3 000 EUR

54 795 EUR

Paid on 23/09/2003

 

HATZITAKIS

10 000 EUR

34 000 EUR

4 700 EUR

48 700 EUR

Paid on 08/10/2002

 

KARAGIANNIS and others

200 000 EUR

20 000 EUR

10 000 EUR

230 000 EUR

Paid on 11/01/2005

 

b) Individual measures

The pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants has been compensated by the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (Tsirikakis judgment on just satisfaction par. 11-12, Hatzitakis judgment par. 57, Karagiannis and others judgment on just satisfaction paragraph 13).

II. General measures

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The European Court's judgment, translated into Greek, was widely disseminated to all competent judicial authorities and it was also published on the website of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gov.gr)

The authorities indicated that the following measures have been adopted in line with the Court’s findings:

(a) previous legislation governing expropriation procedures (law No 797/1971) is no longer in force. New law No. 2882/2001 has introduced significant reforms. Simplified and strict rules are set for the deadlines in judicial proceedings for recognition of land ownership;

(b) standard case-law provides for a global evaluation of expropriation issues in a single set of proceedings (see in detail Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)217, Azas, Athanasiou and others, Biozokat A.E., Efstathiou and Michailidis and Cie Motel Amerika, Interoliva A.B.E.E., Konstantopoulos A.E. and others, Organochimika Lipasmata Makedonias A.E., Ouzounoglou and Zacharakis against Greece); therefore recognition of land ownership and fixing of compensation amount is decided together. This measure is expected to contribute significantly to accelerating the payment of compensation to be awarded to land owners;

(c) the possibility of acquiring additional compensation in cases of delay in the compensation procedure is also foreseen.

Violation of Article 6, paragraph 1

The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the Manios group of cases.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)18641
42 cases against Hungary

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Balint, application No 29086/09

20/03/2012

Barasits, application No 59718/09

03/04/2012

Berényi, application No 30288/06

20/03/2012

Béres-Deák, application No 18428/09

13/12/2011

Bodnar ,application No 48345/09

20/03/2012

Dianovszki, application No 48103/07

18/10/2011

Eösöly, application No 334/09

13/12/2011

Fodor, application No 14551/09

20/03/2012

Fodor, application No 58978/08

13/12/2011

Gajdos, application No 24590/09

03/04/2012

Gallai, application No 11834/09

13/12/2011

Gazda, application No 37370/09

03/04/2012

Gergely and others, application No 57095/08

13/12/2011

Gyöngyössyné Kiss, application No 55734/08

13/12/2011

Gyura, application No 63999/09

17/07/2012

Havrilla, application No 38188/09

03/04/2012

Horvat and Margittai, application No 14947/10

17/07/2012

Jozsef Kovács, application No 50375/08

15/11/2011

Kodrean, application No 17687/09

20/03/2012

Kometa 99 Zrt, application No 46785/07

09/11/2010

Korom, application No 49620/09

20/03/2012

Laszlo Kiss, application No 13847/09

13/12/2011

Legendi, application No 27814/09

03/04/2012

Lendvay, application No 13670/09

13/12/2011

Liberais Plusz Kft, application No 1771/09

13/12/2011

Lovász, application No 619/09

13/12/2011

Mazioné Walter, application No 44350/07

20/03/2012

Meszaros, application No 58174/09

13/12/2011

Pekariné Kozma and others,application No 31353/09

20/03/2012

Purcsel, application No 56071/09

20/03/2012

R.E. Bt., application No 3713/08

13/12/2011

RIH Kft, application No 46769/08

13/12/2011

Rozgoniy, application No 46771/08

13/12/2011

Rozsa and Habony, application No 2810/09

13/12/2011

Rusz, application No 46987/08

15/11/2011

Szabolcs Németh, application No 9837/10

15/11/2011

Schesztak, application No 18548/09

13/12/2011

Süli, application No 29137/09

20/03/2012

Szarka and others, application No 37245/08

13/12/2011

Szebelledi, application No 57193/09

03/04/2012

Tanberger, application No 54216/08

13/12/2011

Toma, application No 600/09

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 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)18742
Daroczy against Hungary

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 44378/05, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/10/2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)872E);

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)872E);

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.

Revised Action Report of 15 June 2012

Appl. No. 44378/05

Daróczy, judgement of 1/07/2008

Introductory case summary

The applicant was obliged to change her married name (from "Tiborné Daróczy" to "Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy"), which she had been using since her marriage in 1950 and for which the state authorities had issued her with several offcial documents, including her identity card. She relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights found that the restriction imposed on the applicant had been unacceptably rigid and completely disregarded her interests, in that she had been forced to alter a name which she had used for more than 50 years and which, beyond its relevance in self-identification and self-determination, also gave her a strong personal link to her late husband. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.

I. Individual measures

- Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicants was paid on 4 November 2008 in sum of 1,363,902 HUF. (Ms Daróczy 3,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses.)

- The applicant received the official documents about the requested change of her name on 15 June 2009 and is thus now allowed to bear her old married name again.

No further individual measures are necessary in the execution process.

II. General measures

Section 27/B of the Act no. 17 of 1982 on maternal register, marriage procedure and names was amended by the Act no. 21 of 2009 (Section 1 para (3), entered into force on 1 June 2009). This change of legislation made it possible to file a petition in order to change the name of the applicant. According to the legal provision:

“The married name of a person bearing the name of his or her spouse may be changed upon request to that effect where

a) the marriage no longer exists, and

b) by an official certificate suitable for identification of persons or by a basic document of the registry of citizens' personal data and addresses it can be verified that the ex-spouse bore his or her name in the requested form.”

The decision was translated and the Hungarian version was published on the website of the Government: (http://igazsagugyiinformaciok.kormany.hu/az-emberi-jogok-europai-birosaganak-iteletei).

No further general measures were considered necessary, because similar problems can be avoided due to the change in the Act.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case, and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Budapest, 14 June 2012

Zoltán Tallódi

Co-Agent of the Government of Hungary

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)18843
Darvas against Hungary

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 19547/07, judgment of 11/01/2011, final on 11/04/2011)

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)877E);

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)877E);

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.

Final Action Report of 21 March 2012

Appl. No. 19547/07

Darvas v. Hungary judgment of 11/01/2011

Introductory case summary

The Court found violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention because of the manner in which the question of prolongation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was dealt with by the courts. The Court held that there had been unjustified pre-trial detention of the applicant from 10/08/2006 at the latest until his release on bail on 30/11/2006 because the underlying reasons were not supported by adequate factual elements.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

Just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained was paid to the applicant on time. No further individual measures were considered necessary, because the applicant was released from pre-trial detention on 30/11/2006.

II. General measures

The judgment has been published on the website of the Government (www.kormany.hu) and was sent to the Office of the National Council of the Judiciary.

It should be recalled that the general measures with a view to ensuring that specific reasons are provided for decisions ordering detention on remand were already adopted in the context of the cases of Imre, Maglódi, Csáky and Bárkányi against Hungary (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)222).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation found by the Court in this case and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Budapest, 21 March 2012

                      Zoltán Tallódi

                      Co-Agent for the Government of Hungary

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)18944
Lajos Weller against Hungary

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 44399/05, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009)

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)879E);

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)879E);

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.

Amended action Report of 5 April 2012

Appl. No. 44399/05

Lajos Weller, judgement of 31/03/2009

Introductory case summary

The applicants, Lajos Weller, and his twin sons, Dániel and Máté Weller complained - relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) - that they had been refused maternity benefits in 2005 because the mother of the children had not been eligible on account of her nationality. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had, - in respect of all applicants - been a violation, of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 of the Convention.

I. Individual measures

Just satisfaction awarded to the applicants was paid on 25 August 2009 in sum of 851,652 HUF. The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 950 for costs and expenses. In respect of pecuniary damage the Court awarded the applicants the entirety of the sum requested under this head, i.e. jointly HUF 179,719 (approximately EUR 720), which sum corresponds to the actual loss originating from the refusal of maternity benefits, plus interest.

No further individual measures are necessary in the execution process.

II. General measures

The decision was translated and the Hungarian version was published on the website of the Government (www.kormany.hu).

The Government sent the judgement to the Ministry of National Resources in order to inform the relevant authority about the content of the judgment and to modify the Act no. 84 of 1998 on Family Support.

The Section 29 of the Act was amended with a new (3) paragraph which extended the scope of the Act for every woman legally residing in Hungary (see Act no. 171 of 2010, Section 79 and Act no. 201 of 2011, Section 173/d).

No further general measures were considered necessary, because similar problems can be avoided due to the change in the Act.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case, and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Budapest, 18 September 2012

Zoltán Tallódi

Agent of the Government of Hungary

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19045
Block against Hungary

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 56282/09, judgment of 25/01/2011, final on 25/04/2011)

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)1057E);

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)1057E);

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.

Final Action Report of 31 October 2012, Appl. No. 56282/09

Block, judgment of 25/01/2011 (Revised)

Introductory case summary

Violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial, his right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (a) + (b)). The Budapest Appeal Court (in October 2007) and the Supreme Court (in April 2009) both re characterised the offence for which the applicant had been found guilty without giving him the possibility to readjust his defence."

I. Individual measures

Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicant was paid on 7 July 2011 (non-pecuniary damage 5000 €, costs and expenses 600 €, 1524843 HUF).

Where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirements of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see § 29 of the Court's judgment)".

By the judgment of Budapest Regional Court of Appeal of 10 October 2007 (No. Bf. 62/2007/21.) the applicant was convicted of forgery of public documents and sentenced to a fine. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment on 30 April 2009 (No. Bfv.II.835/2008/12.)

The Government sent the judgment of the ECHR to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to initiate the reopening of the criminal proceedings under Section 416 of the Code on Criminal Procedure. According to the information given by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on 7 September 2011, the Office submitted a motion for reopening to the Supreme Court. The applicant also had the opportunity to submit his submissions, but he did not do it. On 23 November 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction by the Budapest Regional Court of Appeal’s judgment of 10 October 2007 - No. 3.Bf.62/2007/21 - but re-characterised the offence as forgery of public documents.

The judgment became final on 23 November 2011.

II. General measures

Publication and dissemination

The judgment was translated and the Hungarian version was published on the website of the Government (www.kormany.hu).

The Government also sent the judgment to the Office of the National Judicial Council in order to inform the courts about the content of the judgment and to take due account of the findings of the judgment in their future practice.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case, and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Budapest, 31 October 2012

Zoltán Tallódi

Agent of the Government of Hungary

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19146
Társaság a Szabadságjogokért against Hungary

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 37374/05, judgment of14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009)

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 violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1056E);

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)1056E);

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 11 April 2012

Appl. No. 37374/05

Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, judgment of 14/04/2009

(Revised)

Introductory case summary

Violation of the freedom to receive information of the applicant association, a non-governmental organisation active in the field of drug policy, on account of the courts’ refusal, in 2004, to grant access to a complaint pending before the Constitutional Court by which a parliamentarian had requested the constitutional scrutiny of amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to drug-related offences (Article 10).

I. Individual measures

Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicant was paid on 18/09/2009 (costs and expenses 3000 €, 824.850 HUF).

The applicant association may have unlimited access to complaint at issue before the Constitutional Court. The Registry of the Court makes it possible to look into any appeal. The personal data of those persons who are not public officials are anonymous.

The problem was administrative, no legislation is required.

II. General measures

Publication and dissemination

The ECtHR’s judgment was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement. It was sent to the Constitutional Court too.

The judgment is on the website of the Government (www.kormany.hu).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case, and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Budapest, 11 April 2012

Zoltán Tallódi

Agent of the Government of Hungary

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19247
Károly Hegedűs against Hungary

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 11849/07, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012)

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 violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1027E);

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)1027E);

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 5 November 2012

Appl. No. 11849/07

Károly Hegedus v. Hungary judgment of 03/11/2011

Introductory case summary

The Court found violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings of over fourteen years (Article 6 § 1) and violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the attachment of his assets throughout almost the entire period of time (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1); the applicant regained the right of disposal over these assets when he was finally acquitted in September 2006.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

Just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained (19,000 EUR) as well as for costs and expenses (2,300 EUR) was paid to the applicant on time (Sum due: 21,300 EUR; Payment deadline: 03/06/2012; Date of payment: 25/04/2012; Amount paid: 6,360,180 HUF; Exchange rate: 298.60). No further individual measures were considered necessary, because the applicant regained the right of disposal over his assets in September 2006.

II. General measures

The judgment has been published on the website of the Government (see: http://igazsagugyiinformaciok.kormany.hu/az-emberi-jogok-europai-birosaganak-iteletei) and was sent to the National Office of the Judiciary and the Attorney General for dissemination amongst the judicial and prosecution authorities.

It is recalled that the issues relating to violations of Article 6 due to the excessive length of proceedings are examined by the Committee of Ministers within the context of the Tímár group of cases.

As regards the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), it should be noted that the origin of this violation is to be found in the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. For the duration of the criminal proceedings, the applicant was prohibited from alienating his assets in order to secure the eventual recovery of the gain from the alleged crime. The Court did not call into question the measure of freezing the applicant’s assets in itself but only insofar as it lasted too long and thereby upset the balance between the individual interest of the applicant and the requirements of the general interest (see § 26 of the judgment). The general measures required in this respect are thus identical with those to address the general problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings (see above).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation found by the Court in this case and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Budapest, 5 November 2012

Zoltán Tallódi

Agent for the Government of Hungary

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19348
Di Cecco against Italy

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 28169/06, judgment of 15 February 2011, final on 15 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)578E);

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)578E);

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

Case of DI CECCO v. ITALY Application n° 28169/06

Final on 15 May 2011

Case Summary

Arbitrary monitoring of the correspondence of the applicant (a prisoner) up to June 2006, deriving from a lack of a clear legal framework (until April 2004) and from non-compliance with the new legislation (after April 2004) (violation of Article 8).

This case presents similarities with the group of cases Guidi, De Pace and Zara against Italy, closed by final resolution CM/ResDH(2010)561.

Individual Measures

- Just satisfaction

The European court awarded to the applicant 1.000,00 euros for moral damages, as well as 1.000,00 euros for legal expenses. It has been paid on 21/07/2011.

- Other individual measures:

The applicant is free since 2008 and he was awarded just satisfaction (see above). No further individual measures is therefore necessary.

General Measures

Reference is made to the general measures adopted in the above mentioned group of cases Guidi, De

Pace and Zara against Italy, already closed by final resolution CM/ResDH(2010)56.

Conclusion

The government considers that no further individual and general measure are required in this case and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19449
Guadagnigno against Italy and France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 2555/03, judgment of 18 January 2011, final on 20 June 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)459F);

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)459F);

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 GUADAGNINO CONTRE ITALIE ET FRANCE1

Requête 2555/03

Arrêt du 18 janvier 2011, définitif le 20 juin 2011

BILAN D’ACTION

I. Description de l’affaire

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit de la requérante à un procès équitable du fait que la Cour de Cassation italienne a considéré (en 1997 et 1998) les juges italiens incompétents pour trancher ses demandes, tendant à la reconstitution de carrière et à l'annulation du licenciement (violation de l’article 6§1, par rapport à l'Italie).

La Cour de Cassation italienne, saisie par règlement de compétence (regolamento di giurisdizione), avait jugé que les demandes, concernant la reconstitution de la carrière et le licenciement de la requérante ne relevaient pas de la compétence du juge italien, mais de celle du juge français; en revanche, en ce qui concerne le paiement des rétributions, le juge italien était compétent ; les rétributions demandées auraient pu être obtenues par la requérante du juge italien, à la suite de l’arrêt n.120/99 de la Cour de Cassation.

Par ailleurs, le Conseil d’Etat français, auquel la requérante avait ensuite proposé toutes ses demandes, avait à son tour décliné sa compétence.

Toutefois la Cour européenne a constaté que les juridictions prud’homales françaises étaient aussi compétentes en l’espèce, mais que la requérante n’avait pas épuisé cette voie de recours.

II. Mesures individuelles

Au titre de la satisfaction équitable, la Cour a alloué une somme à la requérante pour dommage matériel (perte de chance) et moral.

Le montant accordé par la Cour a été payé le 21/07/2011.

La requérante a désormais dépassé depuis longtemps l’âge de la retraite. Il n’y aurait donc pas lieu à une réintégration dans son poste de travail dans l’Ecole Française de Rome.

Les autorités considèrent qu’aucune autre mesure de caractère individuel n’est nécessaire dans cette affaire.

III. Mesures générales

La Cour de Cassation avait appliqué, en l’espèce, les principes établis dans plusieurs arrêts sur l’immunité des Etats, tels que découlant notamment de la Convention des Nations-Unies de 2004.

Mais la Cour européenne a affirmé qu’il faut rechercher, quand l’application du principe de l’immunité juridictionnelle de l’Etat entrave le droit d’accès à la justice, si les circonstances de la cause justifiaient pareille entrave.

Il ressort clairement que la violation, évaluée par la Cour, dépend d’une interprétation des principes découlant de l’immunité juridictionnelle des Etats, considérée disproportionnée en raison du but des limitations de souveraineté, tout en considérant que l'intéressée n'était pas une ressortissante de l'Etat employeur et que rien ne fait présumer que les fonctions exercées par celle-ci relevaient de la puissance publique ou étaient liées aux intérêts supérieurs de la France (§72 de l’arrêt).

L’arrêt ne demande pas des réformes de loi ou des mesures d’organisation.

Il s’agit de diffuser les principes d’interprétation d’un traité international, en conformité avec les principes découlant de la Convention.

1 La requête a été déclaré irrecevable pour autant qu'elle est dirigée contre la France.

La diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour sur le site internet de la Cour de Cassation et sur d’autres sites institutionnels, ainsi que sa traduction en italien, et le fait que l’arrêt même fasse l’objet de débats parmi les magistrats, les avocats et les académiciens constitue une mesure adéquate et suffisante.

http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_20_1.wp;jsessionid=156CC587760F743BF0627CC9A6736F7C.ajpAL05?previsiousPage=mg_1_20&contentId=SDU619969

http://aldricus.com/2012/04/07/immunita-3/

http://www.biblio.liuc.it/scripts/essper/ricerca.asp?tipo=scheda&codice=11222907

http://www.marinacastellaneta.it/sullimmunita-dalla-giurisdizione-nei-rapporti-di-lavoro-interviene-la-cedu.html

Dans ces circonstances, l’Italie considère que l'exécution de l'arrêt ne requiert pas l'adoption d’autres mesures générales.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19550
Claude Wagner against Luxembourg

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 43490/08, 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)639F);

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)639F);

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

Affaire WAGNER (Claude) contre Luxembourg (n° 43490/08)

Arrêt du 6 octobre 2011 définitif le 6 janvier 2012

Affaire relative au permis à point

La Cour a reconnu comme étant contraire à l’article 6.1 de la CEDH le fait pour le Gouvernement d’avoir fait automatiquement découler d’une condamnation pénale irrévocable, une sanction administrative telle que le retrait de points d’un permis de conduire. Le Luxembourg a été condamné à cause du défaut de communication au requérant de l’automaticité d’une telle sanction administrative au moment de la procédure pénale au cours de laquelle il pouvait encore contester sa culpabilité.

Ainsi, au point 31 de l’arrêt, la Cour européenne condamne le Luxembourg en concluant que « le simple fait que la législation prévoit le retrait de points, ne saurait, en l’absence d’un renvoi à cette législation au moment où le requérant disposait encore de la faculté de contester les faits qui lui étaient reprochés, être considéré comme portant suffisamment à sa connaissance l’étendue des sanctions qu’il encourait. Dès lors, la Cour retient que le requérant n’a été informé du retrait de points qu’à l’issue de la procédure pénale, c’est-à-dire au moment où l’ordonnance pénale était devenue irrévocable. Or, à ce stade, il ne pouvait plus, au regard de l’automaticité du retrait de points, utilement contester les faits qui lui étaient reprochés. Partant, cette information tardive n’a pas mis le requérant dans une situation lui permettant de préparer utilement et en connaissance de tous les éléments, et plus particulièrement de l’intégralité de la sanction encourue, sa défense contre l’infraction qui lui était reprochée. »

1. Mesures de caractère individuel

Il découle de cet arrêt qu’il n’y a aucune mesure individuelle à mettre en œuvre :

    - La restitution de points réclamée par le requérant n’a plus lieu d’être car le requérant a depuis reconstitué l’intégralité de son capital de points.

    - Le Luxembourg n’a aucune satisfaction équitable à payer au titre de préjudice matériel ou moral puisque la Cour européenne n’a pas été convaincue que « le préjudice dénoncé résulte réellement de la violation qu’elle a constatée ». En effet, il ne découlait pas de manière évidente qu’un recours contre l’ordonnance pénale aurait eu pour effet de blanchir le requérant.

    - Le requérant a également été débouté de sa demande de paiement de 26 754,01 EUR pour les frais et dépens engagés devant les juridictions internes et devant la Cour.

En l’absence de mesures de caractère individuelles à mettre en œuvre, le Gouvernement n’a aucune obligation d’action pour mettre un terme aux violations constatées.

2. Mesures de caractère général

    - Diffusion de l’arrêt

L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été transmis le 25 novembre 2011 :

Enfin l’arrêt a été publié au Mémorial B, le recueil administratif et économique du Grand Duché de Luxembourg, le 12 janvier 2012 (Mémorial B n° 3).

    - Autres mesures

Le Procureur général a émis une circulaire courant 2010 qui dispose que toutes les citations et ordonnances pénales doivent porter une mention du risque de perdre des points en cas de condamnation définitive. Cette circulaire avait été élaborée et circulée le 17 septembre 2010, avant même que la Cour européenne ait rendu son arrêt contre le Luxembourg, se fondant sur la jurisprudence Malige c/France du 23 septembre 1998.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19651
Alliance Capital (Luxembourg) S.A. against Luxembourg

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 24720/03, judgment of 18 January 2007, final on 18 April 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)972F);

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)972F);

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.

Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme

Alliance Capital S.A contre Luxembourg (n°24720/03)

Arrêt du 18/01/2007, définitif le 18/04/2007

BILAN D’ACTION

L'affaire concerne une entrave excessive du droit d'accès de la société requérante à un tribunal et, partant, à son droit à un procès équitable (violation de l'article 6§1). La société requérante, assignée par deux autres sociétés (Allianz Kapitalanlagegesellschaft et Allianz Asset Management), avait été condamnée en appel à changer sa dénomination sociale. Saisie d’un pourvoi de la requérante, la Cour de cassation rendit un arrêt en sa faveur mais oublia de mentionner l'une des deux sociétés précitées dans son dispositif. La société requérante ne put obtenir que la Cour d’appel de renvoi ne statue sur son recours concernant cette société et s’est par conséquent vue confrontée à deux solutions diamétralement opposées dans un litige concernant pourtant des demandes connexes, voire identiques.

La Cour européenne a conclu à la violation de la Convention car la requérante avait été pénalisée pour une erreur dont elle ne pouvait être tenue pour responsable et contre laquelle elle ne disposait pas de moyens de réagir efficacement.

1. Mesures de caractère individuel

Ø Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

Le 18 juillet 2007, le Luxembourg a payé au requérant la satisfaction équitable d’un montant de 12 000 € pour frais et dépens.

Ø Autres mesures

Il ressort de l'arrêt que le litige opposant la société requérante aux deux autres sociétés a été résolu par un accord transactionnel qui délimite les droits de marque et les droits au nom commercial de chaque partie dans les diverses parties du monde (§21).

Le Gouvernement considère qu’aucune autre mesure n’est nécessaire.

2. Mesures de caractère général 

Ø Diffusion de l’arrêt

L'arrêt a été transmis dès le 19 janvier 2007 par le ministère de la Justice au Procureur général d'Etat aux fins d'information des instances judiciaires concernées. En outre l'arrêt a été publié sur le site Internet du ministère de la Justice www.mj.public.lu/juridictions/arrets_concernant_le_luxembourg/Alliance_18_01_07.pdf . Parallèlement, un avis attirant l'attention du public sur cette publication a été inséré au journal officiel luxembourgeois (Mémorial B n° 18 du 12 mars 2007). Enfin, l'arrêt a été publié dans la revue CODEX de janvier-février 2007.

Ø Autres mesures

Dans la législation luxembourgeoise, il n’existe pas de texte réglementant la rectification des erreurs matérielles dans les décisions judiciaires. En revanche, une telle rectification ou demande en interprétation est possible et couramment admise par les tribunaux luxembourgeois. En effet, la jurisprudence récente permet d’établir que la Cour de cassation a eu plusieurs occasions de faire droit à une requête en rectification d’erreur matérielle ou en interprétation présentée dans des circonstances comparables à celles de la présente affaire. Voir dans ce contexte par exemple les arrêts de rectifications, de la Cour de cassation (arrêt n° 73/99), de la Cour d’appel (affaires n° 24434, n° 25690 et n° 33589) et du Tribunal d’arrondissement de et à Luxembourg (jugements XV n° 242/07, n° 59/2008, dont le texte intégral a été versé au dossier le 7 janvier 2011.

Le Gouvernement estime que la jurisprudence ci-dessus offre des moyens suffisamment efficaces aux parties afin de faire rectifier une potentielle erreur matérielle ou faire droit à une demande en interprétation. Par conséquent, l’introduction d’une disposition procédurale spécifique concernant la rectification d’erreurs dans les jugements n’est pas nécessaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19752
Henryk and Ryszard Urban against Poland

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 23614/08, judgment of 30 November 2010, final on 28 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(2011)683E);

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(2011)683E);

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 REPORT53

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

Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban against Poland

Case description

Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban, application no. 23614/08, judgment of 30/11/2010, final on 28/02/2011.

The case concerns the violation of the right to an independent tribunal due to the fact that the trial court, which ruled in October 2007 on a criminal charge against the applicants, was composed of an assessor (assistant judge) (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).

The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Polish Constitutional Court, in its judgment of 24/10/2007, had considered that the possibility of conferring the exercise of judicial powers on assessors, provided for under Article 135 § 1 of the Law of 2001 on the Organisation of Courts (Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, “the 2001 Act”), fell short of constitutional requirements because assessors did not enjoy the necessary guarantees of independence, notably vis-à-vis the Minister of Justice (§ 48 of the Court’s judgment).

The Court considered that the assessor in the applicant’s case had lacked the independence, as she could have been removed by the Minister of Justice at any time during her term of office and that there had been no adequate guarantees protecting her against the arbitrary exercise of that power by the Minister (§ 53 of the Court’s judgment).

The initial defect as regards the lack of independence could not be remedied in the present case by the second-instance court as it did not have the power to quash the judgment on the ground that the court of first-instance had been composed of the assessor since the assessors vested with judicial powers were – in accordance with the 2001 Act – authorized to hear the cases in first-instance courts.

I. Individual measures

The Court considered that in the particular circumstances of the present case the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which may have been sustained by the applicants (§ 62 of the Court’s judgment). The Court also noted that the domestic law provided for a possibility of reopening of criminal proceedings when such a need results from a judgment of the Court. However, in the present case the Court found no grounds which would require it to direct the reopening of the applicants' case (§§ 56, 66 of the Court’s judgment).

In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

The Court noted that the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 24/10/2007 had identified a structural dysfunction and had called for a legislative response. Such response was given by the Parliament which removed the structural dysfunction as of 2009 (§§ 25, 64 of the Court’s judgment).

Noting that the constitutional and Convention deficiency regarding the status of assessors was remedied by the domestic authorities, which decided to abolish the office of assessor altogether, the Court noted that the authorities of the respondent State took the requisite remedial measures in order to address and remedy the deficiency underlying the present case (§ 67 of the Court’s judgment).

The Court’s judgment was also translated into Polish and published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl).

In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government considers that no individual measures are necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, notably the legislative changes, will be sufficient to conclude that Poland has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention in respect to the breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19854
Nowinski against Poland

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 25924/06, judgment of 20 October 2009, final on 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 “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)685E);

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)685E);

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 REPORT55

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

Nowiński against Poland

Case description

Nowiński, application no. 25924/06, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right of access to a court in that his claim for compensation against the Wroclaw Court of Appeal was declared inadmissible on the sole ground that the applicant had not provided his home address (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).

The applicant provided the Wroclaw Regional Court with his work address and post-office box address for correspondence. However, the court considered that in spite of that information he had not indicated his “place of residence” within the meaning of Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, on 16/05/2005 the Regional Court refused his claim.

The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant, who was the plaintiff in the case, was in permanent contact with the domestic courts and it was in his best interest to ensure the proper course of the proceedings. He had therefore provided a fixed address through which he could be contacted. The Court recalled that the right of access to a court is not absolute. It may be subject to limitations, provided those limitations pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate. The Court accepted that “a requirement to indicate a place of residence served a legitimate aim [...] However, it considered that the strict application [of the rule] in the applicant's case” was disproportionate (see §34 of the Court’s judgment). The Court concluded that as “the Government failed to submit any arguments making it possible to assess the need for the limitations imposed on the applicant, the Court cannot but conclude that the requirements of Article 6 § 1 were not complied with” (§35 of the Court’s judgment).

I. Just satisfaction and individual measures

      1. Just satisfaction

    Pecuniary damage

    Non-pecuniary damage

    Cost and expenses

      Amount

        -

      1,000 EUR

        -

      1,000 EUR

Paid on 15/04/2010

2. Individual measures

The amount awarded by the Court (1,000 EUR, approximately 4,000 PLN) exceed the amount claimed by the applicant in domestic proceedings (i.e., 3,000 PLN, see § 11 of the Court’s judgment).

In these circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case was rather of incidental nature and resulted from excessive formalism of national courts. Therefore, it seems that in order to avoid similar violations in the future publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated.

In this context it should be noted that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The judgment has been sent to all courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It has been also sent to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution, with request to include it in the training program addressed to judges and prosecutors, and to the Supreme Court.

In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government considers that further individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, in particular publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, will be sufficient to conclude that Poland has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention in respect to the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)19956
Gajewski against Poland

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 27225/05, judgment of 27 December 2010, final on 21 March 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(2011)1010);

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)1010);

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 REPORT57

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

Gajewski against Polsce

Case description

Gajewski, application no. 27225/05, judgment of 21/12/2010, final on 21/03/2011

The case concerns the lack of impartiality of the court that determined the applicant’s claim in insolvency proceedings, in which the applicant had been appointed a trustee, on the ground that one of the judges on the bench submitted to the court a motion concerning calculation of the applicant’s remuneration (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).

The European Court of Human Rights observed that the mere fact that a judge had already taken pre-trial decisions cannot by itself be regarded as justifying concerns about his or her impartiality. However, in the present case the same issue, i.e. the amount of the applicant’s remuneration, was addressed by the judge in her motion and later by the court in its decision.

The Court further observed that, despite the fact that the court of second instance had all the powers to remedy the situation, it had failed to do so and the procedural defect had not been rectified.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

1. Details of just satisfaction

    Pecuniary damage

    Non-pecuniary damage

    Costs and expenses

        Total

        -

      3,000 EUR

        -

      3,000 EUR

Paid on 09/06/2011

2. Individual measures

The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It further found that there was not any casual link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged.

In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

The violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present cases was rather of an isolated nature and resulted from failure of specific national courts. Therefore, it seems that publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated in order to avoid similar violations in the future.

In this context it should be noted, that the Court’s judgment was translated into Polish and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The information about its publication was sent to all courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office with request to disseminate it among judges and prosecutors. It was also sent to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution.

In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.

III. Conclusions of the responding state

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)20058
Frankowicz against Poland

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 53025/99, judgment of 16 December 2008, final on 4 May 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(2011)411E);

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)411E);

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 REPORT59

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

Frankowicz against Poland

Case description

Frankowicz, application no. 53025/99, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression due to his conviction in disciplinary proceedings, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Medical Court in May 1998 (violation of Article 10 of the Convention).

The applicant is a gynaecologist. He was found guilty of unethical conduct in breach of the principle of professional solidarity, in violation of the Code of Ethics, and reprimanded for having prepared a critical opinion on hepatological and dermatological treatment prescribed by another doctor for one of his patients.

The European Court of Human Rights (“the European Court”) found that this sanction, although provided by law and pursuing a legitimate aim, i.e., the protection of the rights and reputation of others, was not «necessary in a democratic society». It stressed that the applicant's opinion concerned a critical assessment from a medical point of view of treatment received by his patient from another doctor, which was an issue of public interest. The disciplinary courts' approach risked discouraging medical practitioners from providing their patients with an objective view of their state of health and treatment received.

I. Individual measures

The notice of reprimand, imposed in 1998, was removed from the relevant register three years after the decision to impose it became final. The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and rejected his claim for pecuniary damage due to the lack of a causal link between the damage claimed and the violation found. In these circumstances, no further individual measure appears to be necessary.

II. General measures

1. Legislative measures

The applicant has been convinced on the basis of Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics as it stood at the material time.

On 20 September 2003 Article 52 § 2 was amended and currently reads as follows:

“A physician should display particular caution in formulating opinions on the professional conduct of another doctor and in particular he should not in any way discredit him publicly.”

On 23 April 2008 the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment (SK16/07) in which it found that Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics was unconstitutional in so far as it prohibited the truthful public assessment of the activity of a doctor by another doctor in the public interest. The relevant provision, examined in its new wording which came into force in 2003, was not quashed as only its particular interpretation was considered to breach the constitutional norm securing the freedom of expression (§ 25 of the judgment).

Taking into consideration the amendment of Article 52 § 2 of the Code of Medical Ethics and the judgment of the Constitutional Court, indicating its correct interpretation, no further legislative measures appear to be necessary.

2. Publication and dissemination

The judgment of the European Court was translated into Polish and published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). Information about the publication has been sent to all Courts of Appeals with request to disseminate it among judges. In addition Ministry of Health has sent the translated judgment to the President of the Supreme Medical Chamber and presidents of all regional medical chambers with request to disseminate it among the members of the medical self-government.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted, in particular legislative changes and broad dissemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, will prevent similar violations and that Poland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)20160
Three cases against Portugal

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Ferreira Domingues Simões, application No 7041/10

10/05/2011

Figueiredo Martins Amorim, application No 24773/10

21/06/2011

Quinta Do Vallado – Sociedade Agrícola, LDA, applications Nos 28595/10 and 30816/10

10/05/2011

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)20261
11 cases against Romania

Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Bulai, application No 24965/04

12/04/2011

Cocan, application No 25270/03

16/06/2011

Corlaci, application No 16756/06

22/02/2011

Costică Rad, application No 7339/08

12/04/2011

Dănescu, application No 49332/06

18/01/2011

Ion, application No 22959/05

11/10/2011

Medeşan, application No 11950/06

18/10/2011

Negruţiu and others, application No 31665/06

11/10/2011

Pintilie, application No 5431/03

06/09/2011

Popescu Veronica, application No 17134/04

11/01/2011

Radu, application No 45469/07

12/04/2011

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

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly 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)20362
Ştefan against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 28319/03, judgment of 6 April 2010, final on 6 July 2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

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

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings on account of the annulment by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of a final judgment, following an application for nullity lodged by the Procurator General (violation of article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

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

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

Having satisfied itself that the respondent State paid the applicant’s heirs 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)203

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Ştefan against Romania

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings resulting from the annulment of a final judgment by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in 2003, following an application for nullity lodged by the Procurator General (violation of Article 6§1).

Following the annulment of this judgment, the applicant was convicted to a more severe prison sentence.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

3 200 EUR

-

3 200 EUR

Paid on 08/10/2010 (with interest)

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered. The authorities indicated that the applicant died on 09/06/2010.

The possibility of reopening criminal proceedings after a judgment of the European Court is provided by Article 4081 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, according to the information at the authorities’ disposal, the applicant’s heirs did not apply for the reopening of the criminal proceedings challenged by the judgment of the European Court.

In view of the above, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The general measures taken by the Romanian authorities are presented in the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)27 adopted in the cases of Bota, Sergiu Popescu and Precup against Romania (judgments of 04/11/2008, 16/12/2008 and 27/01/2009).

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)20463
Begu against Romania

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

(Application No. 20448/02, judgment of 15 March 2011, final on 15 June 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)486E);

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)486E);

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

Begu v. Romania

(Application No. 20448/02, judgment of 15 March 2011, final on 15 June 2011)

I. Introductory summary of the case

The case concerns the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, for lack of justification of the applicant's pre-trial detention after 14 September 2001 until his conviction on 7 June 2002 and the violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol additional to the Convention for the seizure of personal goods during the house search, goods which subsequently were not confiscated by the courts nor returned in the applicant's possession.

II. Individual measures

The applicant has been convicted to two years imprisonment. According to Article 88 of the Criminal Code, the entire length of the pre-trial detention was deducted from his sentence. He was released on 1st July 2003 after having served his sentence (see par. 59 of the judgment).

With regard to the restitution of the seized goods, the Government assert that the applicant has the possibility of lodging a request with the Prosecutor's Office on the basis of Article 109 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Prosecutor's Office confirmed the fact that the applicant could obtain the restitution of the aforementioned goods if he filed a petition in this respect. So far. the applicant did not express any interest in claiming the seized goods.

The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for the moral prejudice suffered as a consequence of the breach of the Convention.

The Romanian State paid the applicant the amount of 5 200 EUR for non-pecuniary damages and 1 000 EUR for costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings.

III. General measures

With a view to the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, regarding the lack of sufficient justification for the applicant's pre-trial detention between 14 September 2001 and 7 June 2002, the Government remind that this aspect is examined in the context of the Calmanovici group of cases.

Insofar as Article 1 of the First Protocol additional to the Convention is concerned, the Government would like to point out that the facts which caused the violation of these provisions do not represent a general situation, but a singular situation which was determined by the domestic courts' failure to apply Article 109 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the applicant's case. Therefore, the Government consider that the publication and dissemination of the Court's judgment are sufficient general measures that could prevent similar violations.

The Court's judgment was widely disseminated, as it was listed on the website of the Superior Council of the Magistracy at www.csm1909.ro and it can be studied by any interested person. It was also published in the Official Journal on 26 April 2012.

IV. Conclusions

Having regard to the aforementioned submissions, the Government consider that no other individual or general measures are to be taken and they conclude that they complied with the obligation imposed by Article 46 § 1 of the Convention, kindly asking for the execution proceedings of the Court's judgment of 15 March 2011 in the case Begu v. Romania to be decided as completed.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)20564
Bozgan against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 35097/02, judgment of 11 October 2007, final on 11 January 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(2012)482E);

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)482E);

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

Case of Bozgan v. Romania

      (Application No. 35097/02, judgment of 11 October 2007, final on 11 January 2008)

I. Summary of the case

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s freedom of association due to the refusal by the Romanian courts, in 2002, to register an association the applicant intended to form (the “Anti- Mafia National Guard”) on the basis of a mere suspicion that the association intended to set up parallel structures to the public prosecutors’ office and thus pursued unlawful and anti- constitutional objectives (violation of Article 11).

The European Court noted that the Romanian courts’ decisions appeared arbitrary since the articles of association indicated that it would pursue its activities within the framework of the existing legislation and would not substitute itself for state authorities (§23). In addition, before requesting registration, the association undertook no activity which might indicate that it had any anti-constitutional aims (§24). Lastly, the applicable law conferred on the Romanian courts the power to order the dissolution of an association if its aims were contrary to the law or at variance with those set forth in its articles of association. Consequently, the refusal to register the association even before it started its activities appeared disproportionate and thus not necessary in a democratic society.

II. Individual measures

A. Just satisfaction

The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient redress for any damage sustained by the applicant.

B. Individual measures

The Government would point out that the applicant can introduce at any time a new request for registration of said association. Alternatively, the applicant could request the publication of the judgment in the Official Journal and lodge an application for reopening of the impugned proceedings under Article 322, paragraph 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within one year as of the publication.

III. General measures

In its judgment, the European Court challenged the approach taken by the domestic courts when rejecting the applicant’s request for registration of said association, which it qualified as “arbitrary” (see §23 of the judgment). There is no indication that the violation stems from a deficient legal framework in the relevant field. On the contrary, as noted by the European Court, the Government Regulation No. 26/2000 on associations and foundations requires the courts to notify the applicants when the legal requirements for the registration of an association are not met and to provide them adequate time to remedy such irregularities; it is only when such irregularities are not rectified in due time that the courts can reject the request for registration, and they are required to do so by a reasoned decision (Sections 9, §1 and 10, §2 of the Regulation).

The Government considers this case to be of an isolated nature. Nevertheless, the Government took measures to ensure the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Courts. Thus the judgment was translated into Romanian and was sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy for dissemination to all domestic courts. The translation of the judgment was also published on the website of the Superior Council of the Magistracy (www.csm1909.ro).

Furthermore, it should be recalled that the Convention and the European Court’s case-law are the focus of specific programmes for the initial and continuing training of the Romanian magistrates (judges and prosecutors alike) organised by the National Magistracy Institute.

IV. Conclusions

The Government considers that no other individual or general measures are to be taken in the present cases and that Romania complied with the obligations imposed under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Government therefore invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of this case.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)20665
Three cases against Romania

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.

Date of decision

Lincar, application No 23391/05

21/02/2012

Nemeş, application No 13182/03

10/01/2012

Salamon, application No 38431/05

10/01/2012

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)20766
Hirschhorn against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 29294/02, judgment of 26 July 2007, final on 26 October 2007)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

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

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern: the failure to enforce a final judgment ordering the restitution of a building, on account of the diplomatic immunity of the tenant organisation; the lack of independence and impartiality of a tribunal due to an opinion expressed by an inspecting judge in favour of the rejection of the applicant’s claims; the failure of the authorities to transfer the ownership rights over the building in question to the applicant (violations of articles 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention and 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 judgment;

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

Having satisfied itself that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate:

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

      - of general measures preventing similar violations;

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

      DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)207

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

Hirschhorn against Romania

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the failure to enforce a final court decision of 24/06/1999 ordering the restitution of a building to the applicant, on the basis of the diplomatic immunity of the tenant organisation (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that, given the circumstances, even if the existence of the lease might justify the delay in giving the building back to the applicant, no such justification existed after its expiry (§56 of the judgment). Furthermore, the tenant’s possible immunity did not justify the opposition to the transfer of ownership rights to the applicant since such transfer would not in itself imply the eviction of the tenant (§60 of the judgment).

The case also concerns the lack of independence and impartiality of the Bucharest Court of Appeal due to the fact that, during the proceedings, its President disclosed to the Bailiff the opinion of the inspecting judge to the effect that the tenant organisation could not be evicted because of its diplomatic immunity (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court considered that by presenting his opinion, the inspecting judge and, implicitly, the President of the court of appeal had tended to favour the dismissal of the applicant’s claim.

Finally, the European Court considered that the applicant was deprived of every attribute of his right of ownership of the building due to government decisions of 2002 and 2005, placing it on the State-owned property list (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In these circumstances, the principle of immunity of State bodies was not sufficient in itself to legitimise the authorities’ failure to transfer ownership rights over the building to the applicant (§§92, 98 of the judgment).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

200 000 EUR

10 000 EUR

-

210 000 EUR

Paid on 10/03/2008 (in conditions not contested by the applicant)

b) Individual measures

The European Court ordered the restitution of the property in question within three months or payment of just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage. It also awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the pecuniary damage for loss of income. The property in question has been returned to the applicant.

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

II. General measures

The Romanian authorities consider that this case does not reveal a structural problem and, consequently, should be seen as an isolated case. The violations found by the European Court in this case resulted from the wrongful application of principles related to State immunity in the enforcement proceedings.

Furthermore, in the context of the lack of independence and impartiality of a domestic court, the European Court noted that judges were prohibited by law from voicing opinions in public about trials in progress and inspecting judges were formally prohibited from interfering in proceedings (§§78, 79 of the judgment).

In view of the direct effect of the European Convention in Romania, the requirements of Art. 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 as well as the European Court's case-law will be taken into account in the future, thus preventing new, similar violations, after the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court.

In this context it should be noted that the judgments of the European Court against Romania are regularly published in the Official Journal and on the Internet site of the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice (http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp). The present judgment was also sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to bring it to the attention of all the domestic courts.

Finally, it should be noted that various problems related to the restitution of property nationalized under the Communist regime are being examined in the context of the Străin and others group of cases (57001/00).

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)20867
Lupaş and others (No. 1) against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Applications Nos. 1434/02, 35370/02 and 1385/03, judgment of 14 December 2006, final on 14 March 2007)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

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

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a breach of the applicants’ right of access to a court in proceedings related to property nationalised under the communist regime arising from the rigid application of a case-law rule requiring unanimity amongst co-owners in order to bring an action for recovery of a joint property (violation of article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

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

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

Having satisfied itself that the respondent State paid the applicants 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)208

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Lupaş and others (No. 1) against Romania

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the breach of the applicants' right of access to a court due to the rigid application by the domestic courts of an admissibility rule requiring unanimity amongst co-owners in order to bring an action for recovery of a property held in common (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

The nineteen applicants are the descendants of some of the co-owners of a 50-hectare plot of land, which was expropriated in 1950 for the construction of a military base. In 1998 and 1999 the applicants brought actions for recovery of the possession of the land, without the agreement of the heirs of two of the former co-owners. Between 2001 and 2002 these actions were dismissed as inadmissible in last instance by the Supreme Court of Justice in application of the above mentioned unanimity rule. In the cases at hand, one of the heirs had refused to join the proceedings whereas some others could not be identified by the applicants.

The European Court noted that the unanimity rule satisfied the requirements of accessibility and foreseeability and it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of all the heirs of the former co-owners of a property. However, in the specific case of the applicants, the domestic courts had failed to draw any consequences from the refusal of one heir to join the proceedings and the impossibility to identify some other heirs. Construed in a rigid manner, the unanimity rule resulted in an insurmountable obstacle to any attempt to establish the applicants' title of the property at issue. This imposed a disproportionate burden on the applicants who were thus denied any clear and practical opportunity to have their courts determine their actions, in violation of their right of access to a court.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

19 000 EUR

6 000 EUR

25 000 EUR

Paid on 18/07/2007 (the applicants waived interests)

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. Furthermore, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum Article 322, paragraph 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the applicants to lodge an application for the reopening of the impugned proceedings.

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

II. General measures

a) Awareness-raising measures

The European Court’s judgment in the instant case made the object of widespread dissemination. Its translation into Romanian was published in Official Journal No. 464 of 10 July 2007 and on the website of the High Court of cassation and justice (http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp). The judgment was also sent to the Supreme Council of Magistracy for dissemination to all domestic courts. Moreover, a summary of the judgment was presented in the Reports of the European Court’s case-law between 1994-2009, accompanied by an analysis of its consequences and an identification of the authorities which are responsible for the violation found. Lastly, the judgment is presented and discussed during the initial and continuing training of the magistrates.

b) Case-law developments

The Government provided examples of court decisions dating from 2009 – 2010 which indicate a change in the domestic courts’ approach of the unanimity rule. It appears thus that this rule is no longer applied automatically: the domestic courts now assess all the relevant circumstances of a given case to determine whether the unanimity rule places an excessive burden on the claimant and, if this is the case, they move to examine the merits of the claimant’s action.

c) Assessment of the impact of the general measures

The government recalls that the European Court did not challenge the unanimity rule, but only the rigid manner in which the domestic courts applied it in the applicants’ case. In any event, the unanimity rule was abandoned with the entry into force of the Civil Code on 1st October 2011. Indeed, section 643 of the new Civil Code provides that the co-owners have standing individually in any civil proceedings related to the joint property.

Even before the entry into force of the new Civil Code, the case-law developments subsequent to the European Court’s judgment show that the domestic courts now construe the unanimity rule in a manner that is compatible with the Article 6 requirements set out therein. This proves that the awareness-raising measures taken in the instant case were effective.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)20968
Petrina against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 78060/01, judgment of 14 October 2008, final on 6 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the failure of the domestic courts to adequately protect the applicant’s reputation and strike a fair balance between the interests at stake following reports in the media that the applicant, a politician, had been an officer in the Communist secret services (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

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

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

Having satisfied itself that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix);

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate:

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

      - of general measures preventing similar violations;

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

      DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)209

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

Petrina against Romania

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the lack of adequate protection of the applicant’s reputation by the Romanian courts in criminal proceedings brought by the applicant, a politician, against two journalists following their media coverage of the applicant being a former officer in the Communist secret services (violation of Article 8).

By two decisions of July 2000 given in last instance, the Bucharest County Court acquitted the journalists on the charges of insult and defamation and rejected the applicant’s civil claims. The County Court found that the journalists’ remarks on TV and in the written media did not refer to specific facts and therefore represented value-judgments which came within the scope of the freedom of opinion and the right to communicate ideas. The County Court equally took into account the satirical style of the disputed articles.

Contrary to the domestic courts, the European Court found that the disputed remarks were offensive to the applicant and that their message was clear and straightforward, devoid of any ironical or humoristic element. Even assuming that they could be construed as value-judgments, the European Court noted that they lacked any factual basis. In these circumstances, despite the undisputed public interest of the debate which these remarks had been a part of, the journalists had crossed the acceptable line. In consequence, the domestic courts did not put forward convincing reasons for giving precedence to the journalists’ right to freedom of expression over the applicant’s right to the protection of his reputation, thereby breaking the reasonable relationship of proportionality between the competing interests at stake.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

5 000 EUR

-

5 000 EUR

Paid on 09/07/2009 (the applicant waived interests in view of small amount)

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In the circumstances of the present case, the publication and the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment (see below) are also relevant as measures that allow erasing the consequences of the violation. In these circumstances, no further individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

For the Government, the violation found by the European Court in the instant case is of an isolated nature, as it stems from an error of the domestic courts in assessing the actual circumstances of the case. Therefore, the publication and the dissemination of the judgment seem to be appropriate measures to prevent similar violations.

To this end, the Romanian translation of the European Court’s judgment was published on the website of the Superior Council of Magistracy (http://www.csm-just.ro/csm/linkuri/16_12_2009__29187_ro.doc), and is therefore available to the public and the magistrates. Also, the judgment was disseminated to the domestic courts. Lastly, the European Court’s case-law is regularly presented and discussed during the initial and continuing training of the magistrates organised by the National Institute of Magistracy.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21069
Adrian Constantin against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 21175/03, judgment of 12 April 2011, final on 12 July 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)236E);

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)236E);

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

Adrian Constantin v. Romania

(Application no. 21175/03, judgment of 12 April 2011, final on 12 July 2011)

I. Introductory summary of the case

This case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings which ended with the applicant's conviction in 2002 to a suspended prison sentence for negligence in the performance of his duties, as the applicant’s rights of defence were not fully observed when the Supreme Court of Justice, sitting as last-instance court, changed during the deliberations the legal classification of the acts the applicant was charged with.

The European Court found on these grounds a breach of the applicant's right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to be allowed adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b)).

II. As to the individual measures

The Government would like to point out that the amount awarded by the Court in its judgment of 12 April 2011 for just satisfaction was transferred to the applicant’s bank account on 15 September 2011.

The Government would further recall that under Article 408¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant can request the reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings within one year as of the date the European Court’s judgment became final.

The Romanian authorities are not aware of any request for reopening having been lodged by the applicant under the aforesaid provisions.

In these circumstances, the Government considers that no other individual measures are necessary in this case.

III. As to the general measures

A. Publication and dissemination

The Romanian version of the judgment given by the European Court in this case is available on the web site of the Superior Council of Magistracy (www.csm1909.ro).

Moreover, the European Court’s case-law is regularly presented and discussed during the initial and continuing training of the magistrates.

B. Other general measures

The Government considers no other general measures are required for the execution of this judgment, as the violation in this case did not stem from deficiencies in the legal framework governing the proceedings before the last-instance courts.

Indeed, as the Court itself noted in its judgment (paragraph 21), Article 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the legal reclassification of the facts by the appellate courts, only subject to specific safeguards for the rights of the defence.

Under this provision, the appellate courts are required to ask the prosecution and the defence to submit their observations on the envisaged change in the legal classification and to inform the accused that the trial can be postponed to a later date, should they need time for the preparation of their defence.

The Government would like to emphasize that situation at issue in this case is unlikely to reoccur, as the Romanian judicial authorities are well aware of the European Court’s case-law and of their obligation to construe and apply the domestic law in a manner that is compatible with the requirements thereof. Hence, the general measures taken will prevent similar violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b).

IV. Conclusions

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Government invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of the case of Adrian Constantin v. Romania.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21170
Avram against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 25339/03, judgment of 18 October 2011, final on 18 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the unlawful detention of the applicant between August 2002 and May 2003, following a judicial order prolonging his detention on remand without specifying its length (violation of article 5, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

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

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

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

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate:

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

      - of general measures preventing similar violations;

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

      DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)211

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

Avram against Romania

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the unlawful detention of the applicant, from 09/08/2002 to 21/05/2003, in that the order of the competent court of 10/07/2002 prolonging his detention on remand did not specify its duration, contrary to the domestic law, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court (violation of Article 5§1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

8 000 EUR

-

8 000 EUR

Paid on 06/04/2012

b) Individual measures

The European Court noted that the applicant had been convicted and the period of detention on remand had been deducted in its entirety from his sentence. It awarded him just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

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

II. General measures

The general measures taken by the Romanian authorities are presented in the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)22 adopted in the case of Konolos against Romania (judgment of 07/02/2008).

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21271
9 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(see details in Appendix)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

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

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court following applications for nullity (recursuri in anulare) lodged by the Procurator General (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and/or of 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 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;

      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)212

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 9 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court, between 1996 and 2004, following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General under Article 330 and Article 3301 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 in the case of Leca and Filipescu and violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Baragan, Budescu and Petrescu, Falcoianu and others, Gaciu, Ionescu, Popea, S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu and Tripon No. 1).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application no.

Judgment of

Final on

Just satisfaction - Total

Payment deadline

Date of payment

Baragan (33627/96)

1/10/2002

1/01/2003

31 830 EUR/restitution

1/04/2003

27/03/2003

Budescu and Petrescu (33912/96)

2/07/2002

2/10/2002

154 617 EUR/restitution

2/01/2003

10/01/2003

(in conditions not challenged by the applicants)

Falcoianu and others (32943/96)

9/07/2002

9/10/2002

743 260 EUR

9/01/2003

20/01/2003

(in conditions not challenged by the applicants)

Gaciu (4630/03)

30/09/2008

30/12/2008

5 500 EUR

30/03/2009

26/03/2009

Ionescu (38608/97)

2/11/2004 (merits and just satisfaction)

10/11/2005 (just satisfaction)

2/02/2005 (merits and just satisfaction)

10/02/2006 (just satisfaction)

107 500 EUR (of which 100 000 EUR for pecuniary damage and 7 500 EUR for non-pecuniary damage)/restitution

10/05/2006

21/08/2008 (payment of the amount awarded as non-pecuniary damage in conditions not challenged by the applicant)

Leca and Filipescu (27949/04 and 30324/04)

19/07/2011

19/07/2011

5 000 EUR

19/10/2011

14/10/2011

Popea (6248/03)

5/10/2006

5/01/2007

110 000 EUR/restitution

5/04/2007

11/10/2007 (with default interest)

S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu (18780/04 and 13111/05)

27/03/2012

27/03/2012

44 500 EUR

27/06/2012

18/05/2012

Tripon (No. 1) (36942/03)

23/09/2008)

23/12/2008

2 000 EUR

23/03/2009

19/03/2009

b) Individual measures

In the Ionescu case, the property at issue was returned to the applicant.

In the Baragan, Budescu and Petrescu, Falcoianu and others and Popea cases, the Romanian authorities paid the just satisfaction for pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the real property at issue.

The European Court awarded just satisfaction covering all heads of damage to the applicants Gaciu and for pecuniary damage to the applicant Munteanu.

In the case of S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu, the European Court did not award just satisfaction to the first applicant, having noted that it did not submit any claim to this end within the time-limit set. In the Tripon (No.1) case, the European Court observed that the applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage was not accompanied by the required supporting documents and therefore it did not award any sum on that account. With respect to these cases, it should be noted that Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the applicants to lodge an extraordinary appeal (revizuire) following a European Court’s judgment finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum.

In the Leca and Filipescu case, the European Court did not award pecuniary damage, having considered that the applicants should first bring a case before the domestic courts in conformity with Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The European Court awarded the applicants in the Baragan, Budescu and Petrescu, Falcoianu and others, Ionescu, Leca and Filipescu, Popea and Tripon no. 1 cases as well as to the applicant Munteanu just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

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

II. General measures

The government referred to the measures that had been taken to avoid new similar violations, as set out in Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90 (in particular the fact that Articles 330 and 330¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure were repealed by Article 1§17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25/06/2003 passed by the government, published in the Official Journal on 28/06/2003, which received parliamentary approval on 25/05/2004).

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21372
Postolache No. 2 and SC Marolux SRL and Jacobs against Romania

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Applications Nos. 48269/08 and 29419/02, judgments of 6 July 2010 and 21 February 2008, final on 22 November 2010 and 1 December 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 violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the lack of access to a court due to excessive court fees (violations of article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

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

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

Having satisfied itself that, 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;

      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)213

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Postolache No. 2 and SC Marolux SRL and Jacobs against Romania

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the lack of access to a court in 2002 and 2004, due to excessive court fees (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Postolache No. 2 (48269/08)

-

4 000 EUR

-

4 000 EUR

 

Paid on 21/01/2011

SC Marolux SRL and Jacobs (29419/02)

-

10 000 EUR

1 915,14 EUR

11 915,14 EUR

 

Paid on 20/02/2009

b) Individual measures

Article 322§9 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility of reopening civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court has found a violation of the Convention.

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

II. General measures

The general measures taken by the Romanian authorities are presented in the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)24 adopted in the case of Iorga against Romania (judgment of 25/01/2007).

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21473
Valentin Dumitrescu against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 36820/02, judgment of 1st April 2008, final on 1st July 2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

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

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the lack of court review of the lawfulness of a decision of an administrative body in a case concerning the allocation of a plot of land, the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1), as well as the delay in executing a final court decision ordering the restitution of real property nationalised during the Communist regime (violations of Articles 6, paragraph 1 and 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 judgment;

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

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

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate:

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

      - of general measures preventing similar violations;

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

Having noted in this respect that the issues concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the delay in executing final court decisions ordering the restitution of real property nationalized during the Communist regime are examined at present within the framework of the supervision of the execution of the groups of cases Nicolau against Romania (judgment of 12 January 2006) and Străin and others against Romania (judgment of 21 July 2005);

      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)214

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

Valentin Dumitrescu against Romania

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the refusal of a domestic court, in 2002, to review the lawfulness of an administrative decision concerning the allocation of a plot of land and the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The case concerns also the delay in executing a final court decision ordering the restitution of real property nationalised by the Communist authorities (violations of Articles 6§1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1)

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

8 000 EUR

900 EUR

8 900 EUR

Paid on 30/09/2008

b) Individual measures

Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility of reopening civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court found a violation.

The civil proceedings, which the European Court had held to be excessively long, came to an end in 2002.

The European Court noted that the final court decision ordering the restitution of the nationalised real property had been executed in 2003.

In addition, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of all heads of damage. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

1) Access to court: The general measures taken by the Romanian authorities are presented in the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)255 adopted in the cases of Hauler and Stancu against Romania (judgments of 12/07/2007 and 29/04/2008).

2) Length of civil proceedings and delay in executing final court decisions ordering the restitution of nationalised real property: These aspects are being examined in the context of the Nicolau (1295/02) and Strain and others (57001/00) groups of cases.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The government considers that no other individual measure is necessary in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and that the general measures taken will prevent violations similar to that relating to the lack of access to a court. The government will continue to make all the necessary efforts, within the framework of the supervision of the Committee of the Nicolau and Străin and others groups of cases, in respect of the other violations found by the Court in the present case with a view to avoiding similar violations. The government concludes that in the present case Romania has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21574
Geleri against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 33118/05, judgment of 15 February 2011, final on 15 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)203E);

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)203E);

Having satisfied itself that, in view of the information submitted by the authorities, no further individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction (see document DH-DD(2012)203);

Having noted that the issues concerning the general measures are examined at present within the framework of the supervision of the execution of the group of cases Lupsa against Romania (judgment of 8 June 2006);

      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

Geleri v. Romania

(Application no. 33118/05, judgment of 15 February 2011, final on 15 September 2011)

I. Introductory summary of the case

The case concerns the violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the unjustified interference with the applicant's private life and family life entailed by the measures of expulsion and interdiction to enter the Romanian territory for 10 years imposed by the national authorities for national security reasons which were not prescribed by a law in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. Also, the European Court found the violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 7 additional to the Convention, as the procedural guarantees in case of expulsion were not followed by the authorities, the national courts confining themselves to perform a formal examination of the case in absence of factual information.

II. Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in amount of 13 000 EUR for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and 6 300 EUR for costs and expenses.

The applicant's representative did not cooperate with the Romanian Government by transmitting the information needed to make the payment, namely, the applicant's account number. In this respect, the Government would like to mention that they required the information necessary for the execution of the European Court's judgment sending the letter to the applicant's representative as indicated by the Court, namely M. Fikri Ergen, by post mail to the address Rue Royale 229, 1210 Bruxelles, Belgique, and by fax to the number 003222199417, on 7 October 2011 and 27 October 2011. The Government notes that the addressee received the letters, since they were not returned on account of the recipient not having been found or identified.

The Government would like to add that they verified the aforementioned address and fax number and it corresponded to the contact information of the applicant's representative (http://www.infobel.com/fr/belgium/ergen/saintjosse_ten_noode/022199417/businessdetails.aspx).

Also, in spite of the Government's efforts, the applicant could not be found at the address indicated by him during the proceedings. Thus, on 26 October 2011 and 27 October 2011, the Government sent two letters to the following addresses: Chisinau, B. Decebal no. 49/14, apt.2, Rep. Moldova (the letter returned for unidentified addressee) and Chisinau, Str. Tighina, no. 49/4, Rep. Moldova.

Accordingly, pursuing their obligation to abide by the judgment, the Romanian Government placed the sum at the applicant's disposal in a bank account within the time­limit laid down by the European Court.

Subsequently, the Department for the Execution of Judgments of ECHR informed the Government of the letter of 9 November 2011 sent to them by the applicant's representative. It resulted from this letter that the applicant's lawyer received the Government's request for information regarding the bank account of the applicant or his legal representative, dated 27 October 2011.

Therefore, on 5 January 2012, the Government informed the applicant's representative of the placement of the sum at the applicant's disposal in a bank account at CEC BANK SA Bucharest and of the possibility of collecting the payment receipts from the Government Agent or of receiving them by post mail, if the applicant or his legal representative expressed this intention

With regard to the measures ordered against the applicant by the national authorities, declaring him to be an undesirable alien, expelling him and denying him access to Romanian territory, the Government considers that the applicant could ask for a re-opening of the internal procedure by lodging a request for revision of the judgment no. 380 of 3 March 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, on the basis of the Article 322 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The request for revision could be registered with the Bucharest Court of Appeal within three months from the date of publication of the European Court's judgment in the Romanian Official Journal - Part I, in accordance with Article 324 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

So far, the applicant did not ask the Government to publish the European Court's judgment, pursuant to Article 11 of the Government Ordinance no. 94/1999, on the participation of Romania in the proceedings in front of the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers, as amended.

The Code of Civil Procedure and the Government Ordinance no. 94/1999 do not impose a time-limit for the publication of a judgment rendered by the European Court. Hence, the applicant is entitled to require the publication of the judgment without being restrained by a fixed term and then, within three months from the publication, to file the request for revision.

The applicant could lodge himself the request for revision. If he encountered difficulties on account of his absence in Romania, he could contact his legal representative to carry out the internal procedure in his interest.

The Government point out that the applicant's request for revision would be admissible, as his previous requests for revision were based on different factual and legal issues. The revision procedure does not impede an applicant from filing subsequent requests for revision for different grounds, if the time-limit requirement is observed.

Further, based on the European Court's judgment, the Bucharest Court of Appeal could re-trial the case having at their disposal the information regarding the facts reproached to the applicant and observing the procedural guarantees instituted by Article 1 of the Protocol No. 7 additional to the Convention, which are reflected in the Emergency Ordinance No. 194/2002, on the aliens' status in Romania, subsequently republished on 5 June 2008 and amended by the Law no. 157/11.07.2011.

The Government assess that the aforementioned internal procedure represents an accessible and effective remedy that could be used by the applicant to obtain the annulment of the prosecutor's decision of declaring him undesirable and banning his presence on the Romanian territory for 10 years, in case the factual information adduced to the domestic case file substantiate his claim.

As regards the possibility for the applicant of benefitting from the procedure described above, the Government would like to point out that they could not take further steps with a view to the expulsion measure, since they could not contact the applicant until this moment and the applicant's representative provided no information on his present location. The Government reminds that no interdiction of visiting the applicant at his present residence was ordered for his family members and previously they could go and visit the applicant in Rep. Moldova. However, the Government reiterates that, if his family still lives in Romania, they are entitled to appoint a legal representative for the purpose of pursuing the internal procedure for the annulment of the measures impeding him to enter the Romanian territory.

Ill. General measures

The Government reiterates their submissions sent to the Committee of Ministers in the case Lupsa v. Romania, judgment of 8 June 2006, and the case Kaya v. Romania, judgment of 12 October 2006, in which the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 7 additional to the Convention, for similar grounds.

In addition, the Court's judgment was widely disseminated, as it was listed on the website of the Superior Council of Magistracy at www.csm1909.ro and it could be studied by any interested person.

The Government considers that no other general measures are required to avoid future violation of the Convention.

IV. Conclusions

Having regard to the aforementioned submissions, the Government considers that no other individual or general measures are to be taken and they conclude that they complied with the obligation imposed by Article 46 § 1 of the Convention, kindly asking to be decided the closure of the execution proceedings of the Court's judgment of 15 February 2011 in the case Geleri v. Romania.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21675
Burghelea against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 26985/03, judgment of 27 January 2009, final on 27 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)300F);

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)300F);

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.

Bilan d'action

Pour l’affaire Burghelea c. Roumanie (requête n° 26985/03)

I. Résumé introductif de l'affaire

L'affaire concernée vise la méconnaissance du droit de propriété de la requérante en raison de l'occupation irréversible de son terrain par les autorités, sans expropriation formelle et sans indemnisation, dans le cadre d'un projet de construction d'une centrale hydroélectrique (violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

II. Mesures individuelles

Après avoir pris note de l'impossibilité pour les autorités de restituer le terrain concerné à la requérante, la Cour européenne lui a octroyé certaines sommes, y compris pour le dommage matériel subi (voir par. 48 de l'arrêt de la Cour).

Une copie de l'ordre de paiement des sommes octroyés à la requérante par la Cour a été déjà transmis au Service de l'exécution.

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

III. Mesures générales

Dès le debout, le Gouvernement précise que la présente affaire ne relève pas un problème structurel ou à grande échelle dans le système judiciaire roumain, étant plutôt un cas particulier, liée à la modalité dont une autorité a dirigé ses travaux d'intérêt publique.

Tout comme indiqué auparavant, l'affaire concernée vise la méconnaissance du droit de propriété de la requérante en raison de l'occupation de son terrain par les autorités, sans avoir eu son accord de vente et sans lui avoir octroyé une indemnisation préalable. En essence, la Cour a constaté que la situation juridique crée par les autorités n'était pas compatible avec le principe de légalité imposé par l'article 1 du Protocol n° 1, la requérante étant mise dans un état d'insécurité et manque de prévisibilité quant à son droit de propriété.

Le Gouvernement est d'avis que la situation qui a déterminé la violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 constatée par 1a Cour dans la présente affaire a été déterminée par l'option des autorités nationales de ne pas procéder à l'application stricte de la Loi n° 33/1994 sur l'expropriation, essayant en premier lieu d'aboutir à un accord de vente-achat avec la requérante.

Il est à remarquer le fait que l'occupation initiale du terrain appartenant à la partie intéressée, a été effectuée dans le contexte de l'existence d'une déclaration de principe de la part de celle-ci et ayant comme objet une future vente dudit terrain. Ladite déclaration était justifiée par le cadre législatif existant au moment des faits, à savoir l'interdiction de vente pour une durée de 10 ans, prévue par la Loi 18/1991, en vertu de laquelle, la requérante était devenue propriétaire.

Dans ce contexte, le Gouvernement indique le fait qu'à présent ladite interdiction est échue.

En ce qui concerne la poursuite de la procédure légale d'expropriation, le Gouvernement rappelle que, en principe, selon la jurisprudence de la Cour celle-ci : « ne saurait substituer sa propre appréciation à celle des autorités nationales quant aux moyens les plus appropriés pour atteindre, au niveau interne, les résultats visés par une politique publique (décision d'irrecevabilité Cernea et autres c. Roumanie, par. 42 du 31 mai 2011). »

De l’avis du Gouvernement, l'occupation du terrain de la requérante, avant que la procédure d'expropriation prévue par la Loi 33/1994 soit accomplie et sans une indemnisation préalable, est une situation particulière, au niveau du pays n'existant aucun indice que ladite pratique soit généralisée. Selon les dispositions de l'article 44 alinéa 3 de la Constitution roumaine et de la Loi 33/1994, l'administration ne peut pas acquérir la propriété des terrains sans avoir recours à la procédure régulière. Partant, le Gouvernement considère qu'une information de l'autorité publique impliquée en l'espèce sur le contenu de l'arrêt de la Cour est apte à attirer l'attention de celle-ci sur les conséquences négatives de son action. De plus, une ample popularisation de l'arrêt de la Cour, cette fois au niveau général, représente une modalité efficace afin de responsabiliser toutes les autorités nationales en ce qui concerne leurs obligations légales et de prévenir des violations pareilles.

A cet égard, le Gouvernement aimerait préciser que la traduction de l'arrêt a été publiée dans le Journal Officiel de la Roumanie n° 736 du 29 octobre 2009. Ledit arrêt a été déjà transmis pour information aux autorités impliquées, ainsi qu'au Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature en vue de sa diffusion auprès les juridictions internes.

II est à mentionner également que l'arrêt de la CEDH a été présenté dans le recueil de jurisprudence « Les arrêts de la CEDH dans les affaires contre la Roumanie 1994-2009 », Ed. Universitara, 2010.

De plus, le Gouvernement aimerait préciser qu'au niveau interne existe une jurisprudence prévisible visant l'octroi des dédommagements aux propriétaires qui allèguent que leurs terrains sont occupés par les autorités, pour des raisons d'utilité publique, en l'absence d'une procédure d'expropriation.

Ainsi, tel qu'indiqué par quelques tribunaux nationaux76, une personne qui se trouve dans une situation semblable à celle de la requérante a le droit de recevoir des dédommagements à la suite d'une action en revendication, lorsque la restitution en nature n'est plus possible, ou d'une action en responsabilité délictuelle.

Afin de prouver cet aspect, le Gouvernement annexe au présent bilan d'action des exemples pertinents de jurisprudence. Il s'agit des copies des décisions judiciaires délivrées dans 12 affaires dans lesquelles les tribunaux nationaux77 ont reconnu aux personnes se trouvant dans une situation semblable à celle de la requérante le droit d'être indemniser. Ainsi, dans quelques affaires78, les juridictions ont constaté que les autorités concernées avaient procédé à une expropriation de fait et ont octroyé une indemnisation représentant la contre-valeur du bien concerné et/ou une compensation pour le manque à gagner. Une juridiction a indiqué qu'en cas d’me expropriation de fait, l'évaluation du bien en question, en vue d'établir le montant d'indemnisation, doit être effectuée en conformité avec la loi relative à l'expropriation pour cause d'utilité publique79. Dans une autre affaire, après avoir pris note de l'expropriation de fait du bien en question, la juridiction compétente a ordonné aux autorités responsables de suivre la procédure prévue par la loi relative à l'expropriation, y inclus l'exécution de l'offre de dédommagements80.

Quant même, le nombre desdits arrêts est limité ayant en vue le fait que sur le rôle des instances n'ont pas été enregistrées trop des affaires similaires. En effet, ledit aspect prouve l'argument du Gouvernement selon lequel, la violation constaté dans l'espèce ne relève pas un problème structurel ou à grande échelle.

Partant, le Gouvernement considère qu'au niveau national existe un cadre juridictionnel apte à garantir le respect du droit prévu par l'article 1 du Premier Protocol à la Convention.

Ayant en vue les aspects mentionnés ci-dessus, de l'avis du Gouvernement aucune autre mesure générale ne saurait être prise en l'espèce.

IV. Conclusion

Au vue de ce qui précède, le Gouvernement considère que la surveillance n'est plus nécessaire et sollicite respectueusement au Comité des Ministres la clôture de cette affaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21781
AGVPS-Bacau against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 19750/03, judgment of 9 November 2010, final on 9 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)299F);

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)299F);

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.

Bilan d’action

AGVPS-Bacau contre Roumanie

I. Résumé introductif de l'affaire

L'affaire concernée vise la méconnaissance du droit de la requérante, une personne more de droit privé, à un procès équitable, à cause de la non tenue des audiences en public dans la procédure civile contentieuse ayant comme objet la demande de sa dissolution (violation de l'article 6 paragraphe 1).

A l'unanimité, la Cour a décidé qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de l'article 11 de la Convention.

II. Mesures individuelles

La procédure de dissolution a pris fin en 2002.

Sous l'angle de l'article 11, la Cour a retenu que les raisons invoquées par les autorités afin de dissoudre la requérante étaient « pertinentes et suffisantes » et que la mesure prise était proportionnée au but légitime poursuivi et, dès lors, nécessaire dans une société démocratique.

Pour ce qui est de l'application en l'espèce de l'article 41 de la Convention, la Cour a apprécié que le constat de la violation de l'article 6 de la Convention représente en soi une satisfaction équitable. Partant, la Cour n'alloua a la requérante aucune somme à ce titre.

En conséquence, le gouvernement estime qu'aucune mesure individuelle n'est requise dans cette affaire.

III. Mesures générales

Tout comme indiqué auparavant, l'affaire concernée vise la méconnaissance du droit à un procès équitable de la requérante, la Cour statuant que les instances nationales n'ont nullement expliqué pourquoi elles ont décidé de solutionner la demande de dissolution de la requérante dans la chambre de conseil, appliquant les dispositions de l'Ordonnance du Gouvernement no 26/2000 pour la procédure d'inscription des associations plutôt que les dispositions du code de procédure civile qui les aurait obligé de tenir une audience en public. De plus, la Cour a retenu que l'absence de publicité de la procédure paraissait contraire aux règles de la procédure interne ayant en vue que dans l'espèce n'était incident aucun motif parmi ceux énumérés par l'article 6 de la Convention ou par la loi interne permettant de justifier le huis clos et l’absence de l'audience publique.

En ce qui concerne les dispositions légales dans la matière, le Gouvernement expose que selon l'ordonnance du Gouvernement no 26/2000 sur les associations et les fondations (publiée dans le Journal Officiel no 39 du 31 janvier 2000) avec toutes les modifications jusqu'au présent, les associations, fondations et fédérations obtiennent la personnalité morale au moment de leur inscription sur le registre tenu à cet effet auprès du greffe du tribunal de première instance. L'ordre de procéder à l'inscription est donné après vérification des actes constitutifs par le juge délégué, la procédure se déroulant en chambre du conseil.

Pour ce qui est de la procédure de dissolution d'une association, fondation ou fédération, ladite ordonnance prévoit seulement les cas dans lesquels une telle association peut être dissolue et l'instance compétente dans la matière.

Il est à remarquer que ladite ordonnance ne prévoit pas des règles de procédure à suivre, différentes de celle du droit commun, à savoir le code de procédure civile, pour la procédure de dissolution. Dans ce contexte, le Gouvernement rappelle que l'article 121 du code de procédure civile consacre la publicité de toute procédure contentieuse à moins que la loi prévoie expressément le contraire ou que des motifs d'ordre public ou l’intérêt des parties exigent le huis clos.

Partant, le Gouvernement souligne que dans la procédure civile roumaine, tel que prévue par le code de procédure en vigueur, la règle est celle de l'audience publique, sauf les situations dans lesquelles il y a une disposition expresse contraire.

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

Ayant en vue les aspects mentionnés ci-dessus et aussi le caractère très spécifique de la violation constatée en l'espèce, notamment à cause de la modalité dans laquelle les instances judiciaires ont interprété les dispositions légales, le Gouvernement a déjà informé la cour d'appel impliquée dans l'affaire sur les constats de la Cour en ce qui concerne l'application des dispositions légales incidentes et la nécessité de respecter les garanties prévues par l'article 6 de la Convention. Selon les informations fournies par ladite cour d'appel, sa jurisprudence actuelle est dans le sens de la solution des demandes de dissolution des associations dans des audiences publiques.

Afin d'empêcher des violations similaires, le Gouvernement a estimé que la traduction et la large diffusion de l'arrêt de la CEDH auprès de toutes les autres juridictions internes est en mesure de prévenir des violations similaires.

A cet égard, le Gouvernement aimerait préciser que l'arrêt de la CEDH a été présenté dans le recueil de jurisprudence « Les arrêts de la CEDH dans les affaires contre la Roumanie.2010 », Ed. Universitara, 2011.

Le Gouvernement aimerait mentionner également que l'arrêt a été traduit en roumain et publié sur le site internet du Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature (www.csm1909.ro). Un résumé dudit arrêt est aussi disponible sur le site internet www.hotararicedo.ro.

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

En effet, jusqu'à présent, plusieurs cours d'appel ont informé le Gouvernement du fait que l'arrêt prononcé par la Cour Européenne a été déjà inclue dans les débats réguliers dans le cadre des séances de formation professionnelle, tous les juges étant informés sur son contenu.

Prenant en considération les aspects mentionnés ci-dessus, de l’avis du Gouvernement aucune autre mesure générale ne saurait être prise en l’espèce.

IV. Conclusion

Le Gouvernement considère que la Roumanie a rempli ses obligations en vertu de l'article 6 paragraphe 1 de la Convention et sollicite respectueusement au Comité des Ministres la clôture de l'examen de cette affaire.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21882
Forum Maritime S.A. against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Applications Nos 63610/00 and 38692/05, judgment of 4 October 2007, final on 4 January 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 violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1073F);

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)1073F);

Having satisfied itself that no further individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction;

Having noted that the general measures concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of a court and the lack of access to the criminal investigation file have been adopted and that the issues concerning the excessive length of commercial proceedings are examined at present within the framework of the supervision of the execution of the group of cases Nicolau against Romania (judgment of 12 January 2006);

      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

Forum Maritime S.A. contre Roumanie

(Requêtes jointes n° 63610/00 et 38692/05, arrêt du 4 octobre 2007, définitif le 4 janvier 2008)

I. Résumé introductif de l'affaire

Cette affaire concerne l'impossibilité de soumettre à un tribunal indépendant et impartial l'ordonnance de non­lieu rendue par le parquet en 2000 sur la plainte avec constitution de partie civile déposée par la société requérante. La Cour européenne a relevé que les magistrats du ministère public ne remplissaient pas l'exigence d'indépendance à l'égard de l'exécutif et qu'au moment des faits le Code de procédure pénale ne prévoyait pas la possibilité d'un recours judiciaire contre des ordonnances de non-lieu du parquet. L'affaire concerne en outre le caractère inéquitable de cette procédure en raison de l'impossibilité pour la société requérante ou son avocat d'avoir accès au dossier des poursuites. Enfin, l'affaire concerne aussi la durée excessive d'une procédure commerciale (violations de l'article 6§1).

II. Mesures individuelles

La Cour a relevé que le déroulement de la procédure pénale et les non-lieux prononcés par le parquet n'avaient pas eu pour conséquence de priver la requérante d'un examen au fond de ses prétentions dans le cadre de la procédure commerciale (§ 92 de l'arrêt). La procédure commerciale était terminée lorsque la Cour européenne a rendu son arrêt. Par ailleurs, la Cour a octroyé à la requérante une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral subi.

Les sommes octroyées par la Cour au titre du préjudice moral et des frais et dépens ont été payées le 16/04/2008 (avec intérêts de retard).

III. Mesures générales

1) indépendance et impartialité d'un tribunal: Les mesures générales prises par les autorités roumaines sont présentées dans la résolution finale CM/ResDH(2011)18 adoptée dans l'affaire Grecu contre Roumanie (arrêt du 30/11/2006).

2) Accès au dossier des poursuites : La Cour européenne a relevé qu'en vertu du Code de procédure pénale et de la doctrine, au moment des faits, la procédure pénale dans sa phase d'instruction n'était ni publique ni contradictoire. Cependant, suite à l'amendement de l'article 173 du Code de procédure pénale par la loi n° 281 du 24/06/2006, l'avocat de la partie civile peut assister au déroulement de tous les actes de poursuite.

3) Durée excessive de la procédure commerciale : Cet aspect est examiné dans le cadre du groupe d'affaires Nicolau (1295/02).

IV. Conclusions

Le gouvernement estime qu'aucune mesure individuelle n'est requise dans cette affaire en dehors du paiement de la satisfaction équitable et que les mesures générales prises vont prévenir des violations semblables aux celles relatives à l'indépendance et l'impartialité d'un tribunal et à l'accès au dossier des poursuites. S'agissant de la durée excessive de la procédure commerciale, le gouvernement poursuivra les efforts nécessaires, dans le cadre de la surveillance par le Comité du groupe d'affaires Nicolau, afin d'éviter des violations semblables. Le gouvernement conclut que dans la présente affaire la Roumanie a rempli ses obligations en vertu de l'article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)21983
Sissanis and Rosengren against Romania

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Applications Nos. 23468/02 and 70786/01, judgments of 25 January 2007 and 24 April 2008, final on 25 April 2007 and 24 July 2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the 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 impossibility to leave the country as a result of an entry arbitrarily made in the passport, the lengthy prohibition on leaving the city and the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of article 2 of Protocol no. 4 and article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention) (see details in Appendix);

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

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

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

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

      - general measures preventing similar violations;

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

      DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)219

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Sissanis and Rosengren against Romania

Introductory case summary

1) Sissanis

The case concerns the violation of the freedom of movement of the applicant, a Greek national, due to a stamp placed in his passport in the course of criminal proceedings against him which forbade him to leave Romania between 1998 and 2004 (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No 4).

The European Court found that this restriction was not provided by law, since Article 27 of Law No. 25/1969 on the status of foreigners, upon which it was based, was vague in that it neither identified the authorities empowered to impose such a measure nor defined with sufficient precision the reasons for imposing it. The European Court also considered that the procedure for applying the measure did not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse on the part of the authorities, since Law No. 25/1969 provided no review procedure, either at the time of imposition or afterwards (§71 of the judgment).

Finally, Article 27 of Law No. 25/1969 had been declared unconstitutional on 11/04/2001, thus the order forbidding the applicant to leave the country had been in breach of Romanian law at least from that date onwards.

2) Rosengren

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s freedom of movement due to a prohibition on leaving the city imposed on him on 19/12/1995 in the framework of criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

The European Court noted that the prohibition on leaving the city was in accordance with the law, namely the Code of Criminal Procedure and pursued legitimate aims. However, a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the applicant’s rights had not been struck as the prohibition lasted for more than 6 years and the domestic courts did not give relevant reasons for taking or prolonging the measure, although the applicant repeatedly challenged it.

The case also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (9 years for three levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Art. 6§1).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Sissanis (23468/02)

-

5 000 EUR

7 000 EUR

12 000 EUR

 

Paid on 24/07/2007

Rosengren (70786/01)

-

3 000 EUR

-

3 000 EUR

Paid on 11/11/2008

(the applicant waived interests in view of small amount)

b) Individual measures

In the Sissanis case, the stamp in question was removed from the applicant's passport in 2004.

In the Rosengren case, the criminal proceedings in question ended and the prohibition on leaving the city was lifted in 2002.

In both cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

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

II. General measures

1) Prohibition on leaving the country or the city

The regulation in force:

Law No. 25/1969 was abrogated in 2001. Subsequently, Emergency Ordinance No. 194 on the status of foreigners was adopted in 2002 and approved in 2003. It was amended on several occasions and republished in the Official Journal on 5/06/2008. At present, the prohibition on leaving Romania by foreigners may be applied under two circumstances: 1) the foreigner is accused in criminal proceedings and the competent magistrate (judge or prosecutor) orders the prohibition on leaving the country or the city; 2) the foreigner was sentenced by a final court decision and has to serve a prison sentence. In all cases the reasons that have led to the decision shall be specified and, if appropriate, accompanied by supporting documents.

The procedure for applying the preventive measures forbidding an individual to leave the country or the city is regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 2003 and 2006. According to the relevant provisions of the Code or Criminal Procedure, the decision imposing the prohibition on leaving the country or the city must state the concrete grounds which make it necessary.

During the criminal investigation, the prohibition on leaving the country or the city may be ordered by the prosecutor or the judge and shall not exceed 30 days. A copy of the prosecutor’s order or of the interim decision imposing the measure shall be notified to the accused on the same day.

The measure may be prolonged on the basis of a motivated decision. Each prolongation may not exceed 30 days, while the total length of the prohibition during the criminal investigation shall not exceed one year. In exceptional cases, when the punishment provided for by the law is life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years or more, the maximum length is two years. The prosecutor’s order imposing the prohibition on leaving the country or the city, as well as the orders of prolongation of these measures may be challenged by the accused, within 3 days, before the court competent to decide on the merits of the case in first instance proceedings.

During the trial, the prohibition on leaving the country or the city may only be ordered by a motivated decision of the competent court, which may be appealed before the superior court.
The measure may be revoked either ex officio or upon the request of the accused.

The judicial practice:

The authorities submitted copies of prosecutor’s orders and interim decisions delivered between 2006 and 2008, applying the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, out of 67 such examples of judicial practice, 27 concerned the prohibition on leaving the country, while 40 concerned the prohibition on leaving the city. In 26 cases, the courts imposed the prohibition on leaving the city, while in other 8, they imposed the prohibition on leaving the country. In 6 cases, the courts dismissed the requests for prolongation of the prohibition on leaving the country or the city. Three requests for prolongation of the prohibition on leaving the country have been granted. In 18 cases, the courts granted the request of the accused for replacing the detention on remand with the prohibition on leaving the country or the city, while in 3 cases they granted the request for replacing the prohibition on leaving the city with the prohibition on leaving the country. In two cases, the requests for revocation of the prohibition on leaving the country have been granted. In one case, the request for replacement of prohibition on leaving the city with the prohibition on leaving the country has been dismissed.

In most cases, the length of the measures imposed was of 29 or 30 days.

Publication and dissemination:
The judgments of the European Court have been sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy with a view to bringing them to the attention of all the domestic courts and prosecutor offices and have also been published in the Official Journal. The judgment in the Sissanis case has also been sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs, in order to inform its subordinated authorities.

The conclusion of the authorities:

The authorities consider that the current regulation and judicial practice concerning the prohibition on leaving the country or the city comply with the requirements of the Court’s case-law.

2) Excessive length of criminal proceedings

This aspect is being examined in the context of the Stoianova and Nedelcu group of cases.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no other individual measure is necessary in these cases, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and that the general measures taken will prevent violations similar to that relating to the applicants’ freedom of movement. The government will continue to make all the necessary efforts, within the framework of the supervision of the Committee of the Stoianova and Nedelcu group of cases, in respect of the violation relating to the excessive length of criminal proceedings found by the Court in the Rosengren case with a view to avoiding similar violations. The government concludes that in the present case Romania has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22084
Zakova Malinova against the Slovak Republic

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 51493/07, decision of 8 November 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 (see document DH-DD(2012)460E);

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

      DECIDES to close its examination.

ACTION REPORT

App. No. 51493/07

iakova Malinova v. Slovakia, decision of 18/11/2011, final on 18/11/2011

Case summary

This case concerns the applicant's complaints on the discontinuation of the investigation into the incident of 25 August 2006 (Article 3 of the Convention) and lack of effective remedy in that respect (Article 13 of the Convention). On 25 August 2006, two individuals, noticing that the applicant was speaking Hungarian on the phone, attacked her shouting «In Slovakia in Slovak» and caused serious injuries to the applicant. On 26 August 2006 an investigation was opened but later it was discontinued with the conclusion that the incident had not taken place. The applicant's further applications and requests for instituting investigation were also rejected or remained unanswered. The parties reached a friendly settlement where the Government undertook to express their regret for the case of the applicant in the form of press release.

I. Measures realized

In the friendly settlement agreement the Government admitted that there were some circumstances in the case of the applicant that invoked doubts as to the respect of the applicant's rights guaranteed in the European Convention and they undertook to express their regret for the case of the applicant in the form of press release. The applicant declared that she had no financial requirement against the Slovak Republic and wa1ved any further claims against the Slovak Republic in respect of the facts of the application no 51493/07.

Accordingly, no sum to the applicant has been paid.

On 1 February 2012 the Government of the Slovak Republic published on their official internet site the following press release. The Government of the Slovak Republic admit that there are some circumstances in the case no. 51493/07 of the applicant Hedviga iakova Malmova, lodged to the European Court of Human Rights, that invoke doubts as to the respect of the applicant's rights guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the Government of the Slovak Republic accepted the friendly settlement in the case which the European Court of Human Rights took note of on 8 November 2011 and decided to strike tile application out of its fist of cases. In the same time, the Government of the Slovak Republic express their regret for the case of the applicant Hedviga iakova Malinova. In the application no. 51493107 lodged to the European Court of Human Rights.

II. Conclusion of the respondent state

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

In Bratislava 22 March 2012

Marica Pirojkova

Agent of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22185
Stavebna spolochnost Tatry Poprad against the Slovak Republic

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 7261/06, judgment of 3 May 2011, final on 3 August 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)782E);

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)782E);

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

App.No.7261/06

Stavebna spolocnost' Tatry Poprad, s.r.o. v.Slovakia,

judgment of 03/05/2011,final on 03/08/2011

Introductory case summary

The case concerns violation of the applicant company's right to a court as the Constitutional Court in 2005 rejected the applicant company's appeal as having been introduced outside the statutory time-limit and thus excluded from its review a part of the applicant company's arguments concerning the evidence put before the ordinary courts in order to challenge the validity of a construction contract between the applicant company and another company (violation of Article 6 § 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

As no just satisfaction claims were submitted by the applicant company within the given time-limit, the Court made no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see § 56 of the judgment).

The principle of legal certainty means that it would not be appropriate to reopen litigation proceedings at the national level, where this would affect the rights of third parties which were acquired in good faith (third parties in respect of the procedure before the European Court).

The Government also note that the violation of Article 6§1 was limited to a question of damages, which the applicant had the opportunity to claim before the European Court.

In conclusion, the authorities consider that no other individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

a) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justicna Revue) No. 10/2011. The judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court with the request to notify all the constitutional judges thereof.

b) Practice of the Constitutional Court

The current practice of the Constitutional Court is now in line with the conclusions of the European Court in this judgment, as to the right to a court. The Constitutional Court in its decisions of 2010 - 2011 frequently declared the view that in case of concurrent lodging of the appeal on points of law and the constitutional complaint, the constitutional complaint is admissible only after the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal on points of law. However, the statutory time-limit for lodging of the constitutional complaint is considered to be preserved not only in respect of the decision on appeal on points of law but also in respect of the previous decision against which the appeal on points of law has been lodged (see e.g. I. US 169/09, I. US 55/2011, I. US 84/2010, I. US 153/2010, Ill. US 200/2010, Ill. US 114/2010, II. US 443/2011, II. US 192/2011, Ill. US 369/2011, I. US 275/2011 or Ill. US 57/2011). Consequently, similar violations should not occur in the future.

In conclusion, the authorities consider that no other general measure appears necessary.

Ill. Conclusions of the respondent state

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

In Bratislava, 20 June 2012

Marica Pirosikova

Agent of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22286
Segerstedt-Wiberg and others against Sweden

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 62332/00, judgment of 6 June 2009, final on 6 September 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 violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1064E);

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)1064E);

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
Segerstedt-Wiberg and others v Sweden
(application 62332/00) Judgment of 6 June 2009, final on 6 September 2009

Case description: Unjustified storage by the Swedish Security Service of information on the applicants' former political activities in violation of their right to privacy, and to freedom of expression and association (violations of Art. 8, 10 and 11). The case also concerns the lack of any effective remedy with respect to these violations (violation of Art. 13). The applicants took varied steps to obtain the information held on their files from the earliest in 1997, eventually resulting in decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court in 2000.

In relation to Article 8, the European Court considered that storage of the information was provided by law and pursued a legitimate aim. In respect of the first applicant, the Court concluded that the information held was relevant and sufficient as regards the aim of preventing disorder or crime and therefore its retention was not disproportionate (§ 89 of the judgment). However, in respect of the remaining four applicants the Court concluded that storage of the information did not correspond to any national security risks and the interference was disproportionate (§§ 90–92 of the judgment). The Court also found that storing personal data related to political opinion, affiliations and activities that had been deemed unjustified for the purposes of Article 8§2 ipso facto constituted an unjustified interference with the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11.

In respect of Article 13, the European Court noted that the relevant monitoring body – the Records Board – had no competence to order the destruction of files or the erasure or rectification of information kept in the files. The Data Inspection Board had wider powers and could apply to the County Administrative Court for the erasure of unlawfully stored information but the European Court was not provided with any information showing effectiveness of the Data Inspection Board in practice. Further, the applicants had no direct access to any legal remedy as regards the erasure of the information in question (see §§ 120–121 of the judgment).

Individual measures
:
The European Court awarded all of the applicants just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The damages awarded have been paid.

The information in question has been eliminated from the records of the Swedish Security Service and is therefore neither searchable nor accessible to Swedish Security Service personnel.

No further individual measures seem necessary.

General measures:
The judgment of the European Court was sent out to the Supreme Administrative Court, all administrative courts of appeal, the parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice with a memorandum on 15/01/2007 analysing the judgment. Relevant officers from the Swedish Security Service also received information about the implications of the judgment for the activities of the Swedish Security Service.

A new agency, the Swedish Commission on Security and Integrity Protection (hereinafter the Commission), was established partly as a response to the European Court's judgment in this case. It began operating in January 2008 in order to supervise the use by crime-fighting agencies of secret surveillance and qualified assumed identities and associated activities as well as the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service. Since March 1, 2012 the Commission supervises the processing of personal data by the Swedish Police, including the Swedish Security Service.

The Commission took over the functions previously held by the Records Board. It also acquired a new supervisory and control function aimed at improving individual access to a national legal remedy in cases involving secret surveillance and processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service. At the request of an individual the Commission is required to check, inter alia, whether he or she has been subject to secret surveillance or subject to processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service and whether it was in accordance with laws and other regulations. If, in the course of its activities, the Commission notices circumstances that may constitute a criminal offence, the Commission shall report this to the Swedish Prosecution Authority or another competent authority. If the Commission notices any irregularities that may entail tort liability for the state towards a natural or legal person, the Commission shall report this to the Chancellor of Justice. If the Commission discovers circumstances that the Swedish Data Inspection Board should be made aware of, the Commission shall report this to the Board. The Data Inspection Board may then intervene, and if it turns out to be impossible to remedy the situation in any other way, or if the matter is urgent, the Board may prohibit the controller of personal data, i.e. the Swedish Security Service, from continuing to process the personal data in any way (other than storing it) and may attach a conditional financial penalty to this prohibition. As a last resort, the Board may apply to the county administrative court for erasure of such personal data which has been processed in an unlawful manner.

Bearing in mind that the processing of personal data by the Police Service can be of a very sensitive nature in relation to the right to privacy, the Swedish Data Inspection Board has a declared policy to always initiate supervision procedures in the event of a complaint from an individual, unless it is clear from the information contained in the complaint that the processing of personal data has followed the regulations in force. In recent years there have only been a couple of complaints from individuals per year. In cases, however, in which the Board has found, following a complaint, that incorrect processing of personal data has occurred within the police service, the authority keeping the records has promptly remedied the situation or else appealed against the Board's decision. The Board has therefore not needed to take any further-reaching measure other than ordering the police to discontinue certain processing, eliminate certain data or take other similar measures.

Also from 1 January 2007, an appeal may be made to a general administrative court against a decision by the Swedish Security Service not to correct or eliminate personal data that the complainant asserts is being processed in contravention of legislation.

As of 30 June 2012, individuals have requested the Commission to check whether he or she has been subject to secret surveillance by crime-fighting agencies or subject to processing of personal data by the Swedish police (including the Swedish Security Service) in 977 cases. 17 of those cases had not yet been concluded and were still awaiting examination. The Commission has in two of the concluded cases found that personal data may have been processed by the Swedish Security Service in a way that may entail tort liability for the state towards the requesting person. The Chancellor of Justice has in both cases decided that these persons will receive compensation.

The Government's assessment of these statistics is that the Commission's supervision and control of the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service is now fully operational, as required by the new regulatory framework.

On 1 March 2012, a new Police Data Act [Polisdatalag (2010:361)] entered into force.

One general purpose of the new legislation is to protect people from violation of their personal privacy when personal data is processed in the course of law enforcement activities.

The new Police Data Act contains a special chapter regulating the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service. The provisions in the new Police Data Act largely agree with the previous legislation but provide clearer and more detailed regulations in certain areas, including the provisions on removal of data. In preparing the new legislation, the deliberations of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Segerstedt-Wiberg have been taken into account.

Publication and dissemination:

The judgment is available on the Government's human rights website, www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se, along with a detailed summary.

Conclusion


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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22387
Erkuş against Turkey

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 30326/03, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009)

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)896E);

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)896E);

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

Erkuş v Turkey (30326/03)

Action Report submitted by the Turkey on 18 August 2011

A. Case Description

The applicant, who was a conscript at the time of the events, was deprived of his liberty unlawfuly for a period of 17 days before being brought before a judge after his arrest on suspicion of being an army deserter (Violation of Art.5§1).

B. Individual measures:

1. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award has been paid.

2. Other individual measures:

Since the applicant is no longer detained, no other individual measure has been required.

C. General measures:

1. Publication:

This case has been translated into Turkish and published on the official intranet (TSK-NET) of the Ministry of Defence. On 07.01.2010, in an official letter, the said ministry informed all the military tribunals and prosecutors of the publication of the present case on TSK-NET.

2. Dissemination:

This case has been disseminated to the relevant authorities, namely, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice, the Military Court of Cassation and the Administrative Military High Court.

3. Other general measures:

The detention of the applicant for a total of 17 days before bringing him before a judge was not based on any of the legislative provisions in force at the time in question. According to the provisions, at the material time, the period of custody could not exceed 48 hours. Therefore, the violation found in the present case reveals, in fact, that it was an isolated incident resulting from an erroneous administrative act.

In addition, section 80 § 3 of the Law on the Constitution of Military Courts and Criminal Procedure was amended by Law no. 5530 of 29 June 2006, which provided that the time in custody shall not exceed twenty-four hours, excluding the time necessary to transfer the detainee to the nearest military court, and that the time necessary for transfer could not be more than twelve hours. Through this amendment the legislation in question has now come into conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the case-law of the Court.

The government considers that taking into account the new legislation and dissemination of the case-law, the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22488
Karataş and Yıldız against Turkey

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application Nos 4889/05, 4897/05, 24009/05, 33694/05, 37759/05, 42996/06, 43031/06, 43019/06, 43038/06 and 43054/06, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009)

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)895E);

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)895E);

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 Report Karataş and Yıldız and Others
Applications nos.4889/05,489/05, 24009/05, 33694/05, 37759/05, 42996/06, 43031/06, 43019/06, 43038/06 and 43054/06

Information submitted by the Turkish Government on 31 January 2012

A. Case Description

The cases concern excessive length of civil proceedings ( between 15-17 years) on account of the fact that the first instance court judgments in the applicants' cases could not become final since they were not served to the Treasury for 11 to 13 years delays because of the non-payment of court fees for service, prior to the appellate stage.

B. Individual measures:

1. Just satisfaction:
The just satisfaction amount was paid to the applicants on 22/02/2010 and the relevant documents were submitted to the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the EctHR.

2. Other individual measures:
Since the proceedings have been terminated, no other individual measure is necessary in the present case.

C. General measures:

1. Publication:
This case has been translated into Turkish and published on the official web site of the Ministry of Justice. It is accessible in Turkish, for free, on http://www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/.

2. Dissemination:
This case has been disseminated to the relevant authorities, namely, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice.

3. Other general measures:
Article 302 of the new Code on Civil Proceedings (Law no.6100) entered into force on 12 January 2011 and reads as follows:

“ (1) The parties may obtain the written judgment at any time regardless of whether or not the legal fee of the judgment has been paid.
(2) Non-payment of the remaining legal fees does not prevent the notification or execution of the judgment or the lodging of an appeal against the judgment.
(3) Any other article of the legal Codes, including the Code on Legal Fees (Law no. 492, containing contradictory provisions to this Article, shall not be applied.
(4) The finalisation of the judgment shall be determined with a signature of the judge or President of the court, together with the date and the Court’s seal at the end or the reverse side of the written judgment.’’

Article 302 of the new Code aims at preventing any future similar violations as those found by the Court in the case of Karataş and Yıldız and Others. These provisions clearly indicate that any party is able to request the enforcement or notification of the judgment even if that party can not pay legal fees. The parties will also be able to lodge an appeal against a judgment. In other words, relevant national authorities will not be able to refuse the enforcement or notification requests depending on the lack of payment of legal fees.

The Government knows of no other new cases introduced before the Court with similar complaints that took place after the above-mentioned Article entered into force.

The Government notes that Article 302 of the new Code on Civil Proceedings unequivocally constitutes an effective and sufficient general measure for the execution of the judgment in question.

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22589
Tavlı against Turkey

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 11449/02, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007)

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)894E);

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)894E);

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

Kazım Tavlı v Turkey (11449/02)

Action Report submitted by the Turkey on 10 October 2011

A. Case Description

The case concerns the violation of right to respect for private and family life due to the impossibility for the applicant to prevail himself, before the national courts in 1997, of DNA tests proving that he was not the father of his former wife's child. His paternity had been established by legal presumption in 1982, when DNA tests were not available. Nevertheless, the national courts rejected the applicant's request, maintaining that scientific progress could not be considered as “force majeure” justifying a retrial (violation of Art. 8).

B. Individual measures:

1. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award has been paid.

2. Other individual measures:

Taking into account the Court's judgment of 9 November 2006, the Aksaray Family Court considered the progress in genetic and chemical analysis as a reason for retrial and on 2 October 2007 rendered a new judgement in favour of the applicant. In this judgement, the Aksaray Family Court made refence to Art. 445 of Code on Civil Procedure which envisage the retrial of a case upon a ECHR judgement and decided to accept the request for retrial according to this provision. In its justification, Aksaray Court, in line with ECHR’s judgment, considered the progress in genetic and chemical analysis as a reason for retrial and quashed her previous decision dated 01/6/1982 and ruled for the denial of the paternity as requested by the applicant, relying on the DNA analysis report prepared by Ankara Forensic Medicine Institution on 19/08/1998.

On 23 July 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment, thus the applicant was able to get a judgement ruling denial of paternity. Accordingly, consequences of the violation has been remedied. No other individual measure is necessary.

C. General measures:

1. Publication:

This case has been translated into Turkish and published on the official web site of the Ministry of Justice. It is accessible in Turkish, for free, on http://www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/.

2. Dissemination:

This case has been disseminated to the relevant authorities, namely, the Human Rights Inquiry Committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Human Rights Presidency of the Prime Ministry of Republic of Turkey, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate General of Security.

4. Other general measures:

Since the case is of isolated nature, no other general measure has been required.

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22690
11 cases against Turkey

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Case

Application

Judgment of

Final on

MERAL

33446/02

27/11/2007

02/06/2008

AKGÜL

19728/02

17/7/2008

17/10/2008

ARAÇ

9907/02

23/09/2008

23/12/2008

EKMEKÇI AND OTHERS

2841/05+

26/05/2009

26/08/2009

ERCİYAS

10971/05

27/09/2011

27/12/2011

HASIRCI

38012/03

24/03/2009

06/07/2009

KARADUMAN AND TANDOĞAN

41296/04

03/06/2008

17/09/2008

KÖKSAL AND DURDU

27080/08+

15/06/2010

15/09/2010

POSLU AND OTHERS

6297/04

08/06/2010

08/09/2010

TUKSAL AND OTHERS

57711/08+

21/09/2010

21/12/2010

YILMAZ MELEK SIMA

37829/05

30/09/2008

06/04/2009

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”),

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the unfairness of domestic proceedings due to the failure by courts to provide the applicants with a copy of the written opinion of Public Prosecutor before the Council of State and the excessive length of domestic proceedings (in the cases of Köksal and Durdu (27080/08), Erciyas (10971/05) and Ekmekçi (2841/05)) (violations of article 6, paragraph 1);

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 reports 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 documents DH-DD(2012)765E and DH-DD(2012)893E);

Noting that the necessary general measures concerning the excessive length of domestic proceedings in Köksal and Durdu (27080/08), Erciyas (10971/05) and Ekmekçi (2841/05) cases, are being examined in the context of Ormancı group of cases and Ümmühan Kaplan pilot judgment (24240/07) and that the domestic proceedings in these cases are terminated;

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.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22791
Subner against the United Kingdom

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 46850/10, decision of 29 November 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 (see document DH-DD(2012)592E);

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

      DECIDES to close its examination.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report

Name of Case: Application no. 46850/10, SUBNER v the United Kingdom

Decision following friendly settlement

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 1 June 2012

Case Summary

1. Case description:

- The applicant, formerly an operating department practitioner at King’s College Hospital Trust, was struck off the register of operating department practitioners following a hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Health Professions Council (HPC) at which the Committee found him to have been guilty of misconduct and his fitness to practise to be impaired. He appealed to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds that although the relevant practice direction on appeals allowed certain healthcare professionals (such as doctors, dentists and nurses) the right to an appeal by way of rehearing from decisions of their professional bodies, this right did not apply to appeals from decisions of the HPC. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. The applicant complained that the decision of the High Court to consider his appeal by way of review and not by way of re-hearing was in violation of Article 6 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and that the appeal system was in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

- The Government and the applicant reached a friendly settlement, under the terms of which the Government agreed to pay the applicant GBP 50,000 (approximately EUR 57,107) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. The Government also informed the Court that they were seeking to amend paragraph 22.3 of Practice Direction 52 of the Civil Procedural Rules such that appeals from decisions of the Health Professions Council would be heard by way of re-hearing by the High Court. On this basis the Court decided to strike the case out of its list.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award has been paid and evidence has been supplied.

General Measures

3. General measures:

- Practice Direction 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules has been amended to allow High Court appeals against decisions on fitness to practise for health care professionals to be by way of full hearing rather than a review as part of the 57th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The amendments came into force on 1 October 2011.

- Paragraph 22.3(1)(j) read in conjunction with paragraph 22.1 now provides that appeals under article 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001 are to be heard in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.

- The link below to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) website confirms that the Practice Direction

52 update came into force on 1/10/2011:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/index.htm

4. Publication:

- The decision has been published in:

- Emplaw Online http://www.emplaw.co.uk/news/468/9/119348

- Vlex http://eu.vlex.com/vid/subner-v-the-united-kingdom-341470958

5. Dissemination:

- The update to Practice Direction 52 was disseminated to the courts in England and Wales on 1 October 2011. The Government therefore considers it unnecessary to disseminate the decision further.

6. State of execution of judgment:

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22892
A.A against United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 8000/08, judgment of 20 September 2011, final on 20 December 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)889E);

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)889E);

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 Report

Name of Case – AA v The United Kingdom (application no. 8000/08); judgment final on 19/12/2011)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 3 May 2012

Case Summary

1. Case description:

The case involved a 25 year old Nigerian national, AA, who was convicted of rape on 27 September 2002, aged 15. He was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl, and sentenced to four years in a Young Offenders Institution (YOI). He did not appeal against his sentence or conviction. On 7 July 2003, whilst in detention, AA was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) following an application made by his mother on behalf of her dependents, including AA. A notice of intention of deportation was issued to AA on 8 September 2003. The case was pursued until his appeal rights against the decision to deport were exhausted on 25 January 2008. AA made an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 15 February 2008.

AA argued that his deportation constitutes a violation of his right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). AA was born in Nigeria in 1986 and arrived in the UK with valid entry clearance to join his mother when he was 13 years old.

The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR on private life grounds because AA has made commendable efforts to rehabilitate himself over a seven year period and that, in these circumstances, the UK Government would be required to provide further support for the contention that AA would cause future disorder or engage in criminal activities such as to render his deportation necessary. It was determined that no evidence was put forward by the UK Government to support such a contention.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

AA made no claim for damages as part of just satisfaction and so no amount was awarded. However the Court awarded the sum of EUR 4,000 for legal costs and expenses. This has been paid, evidence supplied.

3. Individual measures:

The Government has taken the following individual measures. Deportation action is no longer being pursued. As the appellant has previously been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the United Kingdom, he will retain that status.

The Government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.

General Measures

4. General measures:

The Government considers no general measures to be necessary because the Court held that the interference with Article 8 was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime. The specific facts of the case led the Court to conclude that deportation to Nigeria would be disproportionate to the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime.

5. Publication:

The judgment has been published in, a number of sources which includes the following:

A.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 8000/08 [2011] ECHR 1345 (20 September 2011)

URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1345.html

1 COR – One Crown Office Row- Human Rights & Public Law Update

A.A v United Kingdom- 8000/08 [2011] ECHR 1345 Rosalind English 21 September 2011:

http://www.1cor.com/1315/?form_1155.replyids=1441

Immigration Law Bulletin- Issue 245-26 September 2011- Published Monday, 26 September 2011:

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/bulletins/category/bulletin_detail.cfm?iBulletinID=655

6. Dissemination:

The Government considers it unnecessary to disseminate the judgment because the case is confined to its own specific facts and does not give rise to any policy changes.

7. State of execution of judgment:

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22993
Al Khawaja against United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 26766/05, judgment of 15 December 2011, Grand Chamber)

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)771E);

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)771E);

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 Report

Tahery v The United Kingdom (Case Al-Khawaja and Tahery No. 26766/05)

(Application no. 22228/06; judgment final on 19 December 2011)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 8 June 2012

Case Summary

1. Case description:

- The applicant Mr Tahery alleged that his trial for wounding with intent to commit grievous bodily harm in 2005 had been unfair because the statement of one witness, who feared attending trial, was read to the jury.

- The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6§1 read in conjunction with Article 6§3(d) of the Convention in respect of Mr Tahery.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award of €18,000 has been paid and evidence supplied.

3. Individual measures:

- The Government considers no further individual measures to be necessary. It is open to Mr Tahery to make an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for review of his case.

General Measures

4. General Measures

- The Government considers no general measures to be necessary. The judgment is confined to its specific facts. The Grand Chamber stated in their decision that “… the safeguards contained in the 1988 and 2003 Acts, supported by those contained in section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the common law, are, in principle, strong safeguards designed to ensure fairness” (paragraph 151).

-

5. Publication:

- The judgment has been publicised in the following locations:

6. Dissemination:

- The judgment has also been disseminated to the English and Welsh judiciary via the judicial intranet.

7. State of execution of judgment

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)23094
Hanif and Khan against United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 52999/08, judgment of 20 December 2011, final on 20 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)888E);

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)888E);

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

Case of Hanif and Khan v The United Kingdom (Applications no. 52999/08 and 61779/08);
judgment final on 20 March 2012. Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government
on 20 September 2012

Case Summary

1. Case description:

The case concerns two individuals convicted of drug-related offences.  During the trial, a member of the jury informed the judge that he was a serving police officer, and that he knew one of the police officers giving evidence although he had not worked with him in the last two years. Defence counsel applied to have the juror discharged on the grounds that there was a conflict of evidence between the police and the first applicant which the jury would have to resolve, and that it was therefore unfair for the jury to include a police officer. The trial judge dismissed the application. 

The Court found unanimously on the facts that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in respect of both applicants.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction awards of €4,500 to the first applicant and €2,000 to the second applicant have been paid and evidence supplied.

3. Individual measures:

The Government considers no further individual measures are required. It is open to the applicants to make applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for review of their cases.

General Measures

4. General measures:

The Government also considers no general measures to be necessary. The UK courts already have the power to discharge a juror. Should a similar case arise again, the UK courts would be obliged by section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to take into account the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this case when considering whether to exercise that power.

The European Court of Human Rights expressly noted at paragraph 145 that it was not assessing the extent to which the legislation permitting police officers to participate in jury service in England and Wales complies with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the Convention, but only whether in the circumstances of the applicants’ case, there had been a breach of Article 6(1).

5. Publication:

The judgment has been published in the following location:

The British and Irish Legal Information Institute website at http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2247.html.

6. Dissemination:

The Government considers it unnecessary to further disseminate the judgment because the case is confined to its own specific facts and does not give rise to any policy changes.

7. State of execution of judgment

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)23195
J.M. against United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 37060/06, judgment of 28 September 2010, final on 28 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(2012)937E);

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)937E);

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 Report

JM v The United Kingdom (application no. 37060/06; judgment final on 28/12/2010)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 10 October 2011

Case Summary

1. Case description

The case involved an absent mother who was in a same sex relationship. As the non resident parent she was required to contribute towards her children’s upbringing and in 2001 the relevant legislation provided for a reduced amount when the absent parent was in a relationship, but took no account of same sex relationships.

The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence attached.

General Measures

3. General measures:

The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because the discrimination complaint in this case has already been resolved by means of legislation – the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and subordinate legislation. This amended the relevant legislation to provide that, in the relevant situation, same sex relationships are taken into account in an equivalent way to relationships between persons of the opposite sex.

4. Publication:

The judgment has been published in:

- All England Law Reports: [2010] All ER (D) 51 (Oct)

http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2010/September/JM-v-United-Kingdom

- British and Irish Legal Information Institute Database: [2010] ECHR 1361

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1361.html

5. Dissemination:

- The Government considers it is unnecessary to disseminate the judgment because the law has already been changed (in fact, some considerable time ago – Civil Partnerships Act 2004 and subordinate legislation) and so highlighting the previous legislation would be unnecessary and confusing.

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)23296
Minshall against United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 7350/06, judgment of 20 December 2011, final on 20 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)936E);

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)936E);

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 Report

Minshall v the United Kingdom (application no 7350/06/ judgment final on 20/03/2012)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 20 September

Case Summary

This case concerns the excessive length of confiscation proceedings, which began in February 2000 following the applicant’s Robert John Minshall’s conviction of conspiracy to evade excise duty on alcoholic liquor. He complained that the ensuing confiscation proceedings against him which concluded in February 2006, were excessively long and in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).

The European Court of Human Rights found the UK in violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceeding) with regard to delay waiting for a judgment from the House of Lords and awarded just satisfaction of EUR 2,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage).

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award has been paid; and evidence has been supplied.

3. Individual measures:

The Government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.

General Measures

4. General measures:

The Supreme Court came into existence on 1 October 2009; it took over the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and now hears these final appeals. Research has showed that the length of time proceedings took in the House of Lords was in some cases extensive. The Supreme Court has taken a number of measures to prevent such delays from arising. For instance, The Rules of Court and Practice Directions for the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Registry is taking a much more proactive role in chasing legal representatives and in ensuring that cases are listed at the earliest possible opportunity. It has performance indicators for dealing with casework: all decisions on permission applications to be made within twelve sitting weeks of receipt of all the necessary documentation; and all hearing dates to be offered within four sitting weeks of the grant of permission. Where there are difficulties in achieving the second of these targets early views are sought from a designated Justice as to how the case should be managed. In addition, the Supreme Court also has better management of information available than was available to staff in the House of Lords Judicial Office.

5. Publication:

The judgment has been published in:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2243.html

http://www.lccsa.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=18438&rcid=11&pcid=9&cid=11&mid=71

6. Dissemination:

The delay in this case was caused by the lengthy wait for a judgment from the House of Lords. As noted in the General measures section above, since this case was determined in the UK, the Supreme Court has come into existence and taken over the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.

The General measures section above details the measures the Supreme Court has put in place to prevent similar delays arising in future.

This judgment has been disseminated to the Supreme Court and therefore the Government considers no further dissemination is necessary.

7. State of execution of judgment:

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

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)233
Sejdić and Finci against Bosnia and Herzegovina

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 27996/06, judgment of 22/12/2009 – Grand Chamber)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012

at the 1157th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”);

Having regard to the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) of 22 December 2009 in the case of Sejdić and Finci against Bosnia and Herzegovina transmitted to the Committee for supervision of its execution under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that, from the beginning of its examination of this case, the Committee considered that the execution of this judgment would require a number of amendments to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to its electoral legislation;

Underlining that these amendments, by allowing all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to run for elections, would enhance the functioning of democratic institutions in the country and citizens’ confidence in them;

Stressing the particular responsibility of the authorities and political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina in this respect, having regard also to the bearing that this matter has on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s prospect for European integration;

Noting with profound disappointment that, despite their latest commitment to amend the Constitution by 30 November 2012 and, to this end, to present draft constitutional amendments to the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina by 31 August 2012, the executive authorities and political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina have, once again, failed to reach a consensus and to amend the Constitution;

Reiterating once again that, in becoming a member of the Council of Europe in 2002, Bosnia and Herzegovina undertook to “review within one year, with the assistance of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), the electoral legislation in the light of Council of Europe standards, and to revise it where necessary”97;

Reiterating also the willingness of the Council of Europe to assist the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in meeting this commitment;

Bearing in mind that in September 2012, Commissioner Štefan Füle and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland noted in a joint statement with great disappointment that, despite their commitments, the executive authorities and political leaders have, once again, failed to reach a consensus and to present draft constitutional amendments to the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina by 31 August 2012;

Stressing that reaching a political consensus is an indispensable condition for the amendment of the Constitution and the electoral legislation in order to ensure not only the execution of the present judgment but also full compliance of future elections with Convention requirements;

      FIRMLY RECALLS the obligation of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by the judgment of the Court in the case of Sejdić and Finci;

      STRONGLY URGES the authorities and political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina to amend the Constitution and the electoral legislation and to bring them in conformity with the Convention requirements without any further delay;

      DECIDES to examine the present case at each of its “Human Rights” meeting until the political leaders and authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina reach a consensus on the measures required for the execution of this judgment.

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)234
Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov against Ukraine and the Zhovner group of 389 cases against Ukraine (
list of cases) concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions and the lack of an effective remedy in respect thereof

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 40450/04, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012

at the 1157th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”);

Having regard to the pilot judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) of 15 October 2009 in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov against Ukraine and 389 cases in the Zhovner group transmitted to the Committee for supervision of its execution under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that since 2004, the Committee of Ministers has repeatedly called upon the Ukrainian authorities to adopt, as a matter of priority, the necessary measures in its domestic legal system (CM/ResDH(2008)1, CM/ResDH(2009)159, CM/ResDH(2010)222, and CM/ResDH(2011)184);

Recalling in this context that the new law of 5 June 2012 “on State guarantees concerning execution of judicial decisions” concerns, notwithstanding the pilot judgment, only future judicial decisions and, therefore, does not permit the repatriation of repetitive applications already pending before the Court, nor to stop the influx of new repetitive applications;

Recalling further its latest decision adopted in September 2012, in which the Committee urged the Ukrainian authorities once again to take the necessary measures in order to resolve this problem as a matter of utmost urgency, as well as to address the concerns set out in the memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2012)29 regarding the provisions of the new law;

Noting that in response to the Committee’s aforementioned decision, the Ukrainian authorities indicated that they have drafted the law On amendments to the Law of Ukraine On guarantees of the State concerning the execution of the court decisions aimed at resolving the problem of outstanding debts and which is currently under consideration by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;

Deeply regretting however that this draft law has not been introduced yet, and urging therefore the Ukrainian authorities to increase their efforts to swiftly bring the legislative process to an end;

Profoundly deploring that the pilot judgment therefore still remains to be fully executed and that this situation poses a serious threat to the respect of the rule of law and to the effectiveness of the Convention system;

Reaffirming most firmly that the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have undertaken to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties and that this obligation is unconditional,

      URGES the Ukrainian authorities to adopt as a matter of utmost priority the necessary measures in order to resolve the problem of non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions and to fully comply with the pilot judgment with no further delay;

      ENCOURAGES the Ukrainian authorities in particular to make increasingly use of unilateral declarations and friendly settlements in order to resolve the problem of cases pending before the Court.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

2 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

3 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

4 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

5 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

6 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

7 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

8 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

9 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

10 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

11 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

12 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

13 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

14 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

15 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

16 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

17 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

18 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

19 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

20 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

21 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

22 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

23 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

24 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

25 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

26 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

27 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

28 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

29 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

30 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

31 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

32 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

33 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

34 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

35 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

36 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

37 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

38 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

39 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

40 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

41 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

42 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

43 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

44 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

45 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

46 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

47 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

48 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

49 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

50 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

51 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

52 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

53 Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 2 August 2011.

54 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

55 Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 1 August 2011.

56 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

57 Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 14 October 2011.

58 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

59 Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 27 May 2011.

60 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

61 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

62 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

63 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

64 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

65 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

66 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

67 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

68 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

69 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

70 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

71 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

72 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

73 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

74 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

75 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

76 La cour d'appel d'Alba Iulia, les tribunaux départementaux de Bucarest, lalomita, Valcea et Teleorman et les tribunaux de première instance du 2e, 4e, 5e et 6e arrondissements de Bucarest.

77 A savoir, les cours d’appel de Cluj et Galati, les tribunaux départementaux d'Arges, Braila, Calarasi, lasi, Timis et Valcea et les tribunaux de première instance d'Arad, Brasov, Iasi et Motru.

78 Voir, par exemple, la décision n° 619/A/2005 de la cour d'appel de Galati, la décision n° 210/2008 du tribunal départemental d'Arges, la décision n° 128/2011 du tribunal départemental de Braia, la décision n° 152/R/2009 du tribunal départemental de Valcea, la décision n° 2899/2010 du tribunal départemental de Calarasi, la décision n° 3386/2010 du tribunal de première instance d'Arad, Ia décision n° 723/2011 du tribunal de première instance de Motru.

79 Voir la décision n° 1687/2011 de Ia cour d'appel de Cluj.

80 Voir Ia décision n° 3806/2008 du tribunal départemental de Timis.

81 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

82 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

83 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

84 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

85 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

86 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

87 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

88 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

89 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

90 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

91 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

92 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

93 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

94 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

95 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

96 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

97 see Opinion 234(2002) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 22 January 2002, § 15 (iv)(b); see also § 21 of the present judgment.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents