CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2D2AB0A7 { height:12.45pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s25E6E78A { height:13.2pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1666B0A7 { height:13.55pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)192 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Castren-Niniou against Greece   (Application No. 43837/02 , judgment of 9 June 2005, final on 9 September 2005)     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 comply with a domestic court judgment ordering the administration to grant the applicant the post she had applied for. The case concerns also the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)192   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Castren-Niniou against Greece     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the administration’s failure to comply with a judgment of the Chania Administrative Appeal Court delivered in May 2001 ordering the Rhodes Hospital Appeal Evaluation Council to grant the applicant the post she had applied for as a dentist in that hospital. The European Court considered that although the Chania Administrative Court of Appeal explicitly recognised the applicant’s right to be appointed to the disputed post, the authorities offered it to another candidate, thereby demonstrating a clear intention not to take into account a decision rendered by a competent domestic court (violation of Article   6§1). The case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts (more than 10 years for 4 degrees of jurisdiction) (violation of Article   6§1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 10 000 EUR - 10 000 EUR Paid on 20/12/2005   b) Individual measures The applicant was promoted to the post of hospital attendant grade A on 01/10/1998. In August 2002 the applicant initiated new litigation concerning her retroactive appointment to this post from 1990, as ordered by the Chania Administrative Appeal Court in 2001. By judgment 86/2005 (07/07/2005) this court granted the applicant’s claim and remitted the case to the administration for the applicant to be appointed retroactively to the post. By ministerial decision No. 43958/25-05-2006 (published in Official Journal 178/28-06-2006) the applicant was appointed to the post retroactively as from 1990, in accordance with the judgments of the domestic courts and of the European Court. As regards the question of retroactive payment of salary, according to Article 8§4 of Law 2071/1992 doctors’ retroactive appointment to public posts affect their professional development in all respects but there is no right to receive salary retroactively for reasons relating to the state’s budgetary policy. In this respect, it is noted that the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violations. The applicants’ claims relating to property rights and pecuniary damages were dismissed by the European Court on the ground that such damages could have been awarded by domestic courts upon initiation by the applicant of relevant proceedings (see §§45 and 51 of judgment). Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   1) A dministration’s failure to comply with final domestic judgments :   The case presents similarities with other previous cases relating to the administration’s non-compliance with domestic judgments, in the context of which Greece has adopted a series of constitutional, statutory and other measures for the prevention of similar violations (see Final Resolution ResDH(2004)81 in Hornsby against Greece and other cases, 09/12/2004). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the Beka-Koulocheri group.   2) Excessive length of proceedings in administrative courts :   Legislative and other measures were adopted to accelerate proceedings before administrative courts (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)65 on Pafitis and others and 14 other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the Manios group. Finally, the European Court’s judgment has been translated and published on the website of the State Legal Council ( www.nsk.gr ). It has also been brought to the attention of the Health Ministry and the competent appraisal council.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies