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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8AC2EC0 { margin-left:50.45pt; padding-left:21.75pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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)196 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Gorou No. 4 against Greece   (Application No. 9747/04, judgment of 11 January 2007, final on 23 May 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 insufficient reasoning of the refusal of the Prosecutor before the Court of Cassation to introduce an appeal on points of law on the applicant’s behalf. The case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before criminal 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)196   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Gorou No. 4 against Greece     Introductory case summary   The case concerns violations of the applicant’s right to a fair trial. In 1998 the applicant had filed a complaint for libel against an unknown person, with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party. The applicant appealed, without success, against a decision to acquit the defendants. In 2003 the Prosecutor before the Court of Cassation refused, in a handwritten annotation on the applicant’s request, to introduce an appeal on points of law on the applicant’s behalf. The European Court concluded that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to the Prosecutor’s failure to provide any reason for dismissing of the applicant’s request (violation of Article   6§1). The case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before criminal courts (4 years and more than 6 months for 1 degree 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 - 4 000 EUR 1 900 EUR 5 900 EUR Paid on 20/7/2007   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As noted by the European Court, when an acquittal has been decided, under domestic law the civil party is not, in principle, entitled to appeal directly on points of law or to seek redress from the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation (§38). Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     General measures   1) Right to fair trial   In its subsequent judgment Gorou (No. 2) (No 12686/03, of 20/03/2009) the Grand Chamber of the European Court found that ‘‘the handwritten note placed on the applicant’s request simply gives information about the discretionary decision taken by the public prosecutor. Seen from that perspective, and having regard to the existing judicial practice, the public prosecutor does not have a duty to justify his response but only to give a response to the civil party. To demand more detailed reasoning would place on the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation an additional burden that is not imposed by the nature of the civil party’s request for him to appeal on points of law against an acquittal’’ (§42). This judgment has remedied this aspect of the violation of Article 6§1.   2) Excessive length of proceedings in criminal courts :   Legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before criminal courts have been adopted (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)66 on Tarighi Wageh Dashti and 7 other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the Manios group. The Court’s judgment was translated and disseminated to all competent judicial authorities and is available on the website of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr).   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies