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 } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s47462DB { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .s30B7EC83 { width:26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA33D7C1B { width:98.38%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7395DA42 { width:22.7%; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s5A2C8D3E { width:17.42%; 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 } .s2ED7BB1C { width:18.68%; 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 } .sC3DFAD9C { width:16.82%; 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 } .s6289AA4 { width:24.38%; 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 } .s55CB5B8E { width:22.7%; 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 } .s43CB2E29 { width:17.42%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBB1804B6 { width:18.68%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s31095C4B { width:16.82%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5748E06E { width:24.38%; 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 } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF29C8316 { width:19.88pt; 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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)204 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Braga and Nistas GMBH against Moldova   (Application No. 74154/01, judgment of 14 November 2006, final on 14 February 2007) (Application No. 30303/03, judgment of 12 December 2006, final on 12 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 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 applicants’ rights to a fair hearing and to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as a result of the quashing of final judgments delivered in their favour (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 and 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 Moldova’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of   - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and   - 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(2010)204   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the cases of Braga and Nistas GMBH against Moldova     Introductory case summary   These cases concern violations of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing and to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the quashing in 2001 and in June 2003 by the Supreme Court of Justice of final judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour, following requests by the Prosecutor General as part of an extraordinary procedure.   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 Braga (74154/01) EUR 1 767 EUR 2 000 EUR 600 EUR 4 367 Paid on 07/05/2007 Nistas GMBH (30303/03) EUR 60 597 EUR 2 000 EUR 2 400 EUR 64 997 Paid on 30/05/2007   b) Individual measures   The respondent state has paid just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages sustained as a result of the overturning of the original judgments, awarded to the applicants by the European Court. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered to be necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   General measures taken are described in the Final Resolution 56/2007 in the Rosca against Moldova (6267/02).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Moldova 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