CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 mars 2011

.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 } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sD5A5BBC1 { color:#3366ff } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; 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(2011)5 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Raichinov against Bulgaria   (Application No. 47579/99, judgment of 20/04/2006, final on 20/07/2006)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the 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 disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression due to his being sentenced in 1998 to a fine and a public reprimand for having insulted a high-ranking official (violation of article 10) (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(2011)5   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Raichinov against Bulgaria     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression due to his being sentenced in 1998 to a fine and a public reprimand for having insulted a high-ranking official (violation of Article 10). The applicant, who was Head of the Finance Division in the Ministry of Justice at the material time, declared at a working meeting that in his opinion the Deputy Prosecutor General was not honest and added that he could prove his statement.   Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the reaction of the Prosecutor General who insisted on the applicant’s prosecution ex officio and the ensuing conviction were disproportionate and failed to answer any pressing social need.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 23 EUR 2 000 EUR 1 500 EUR 3 523 EUR Paid on 19/10/2006   b) Individual measures   The just satisfaction awarded by the Court included the amount of the fine paid by the applicant. The public reprimand was never enforced because the relevant prescription period expired. In addition, in 2007, the Supreme Court of Cassation reopened the proceedings against the applicant following the European Court’s judgment and by decision No. 293/2007 annulled the applicant’s conviction and acquitted him. The Supreme Court grounded its decision on the conclusions of the European Court. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   Following modifications of the Criminal Code introduced in 2000, insult may now only be prosecuted privately (§§30 and 50 of the judgment) and imprisonment may no longer be imposed for this kind of offences. Furthermore, Bulgarian case-law is constantly evolving so as to take better account of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court. Finally, the European Court’s judgment has been translated into Bulgarian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg , as well as in legal databases currently used by legal professionals. It has been sent to the relevant domestic courts.     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 European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Bulgaria have thus complied with their obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 March 2011 at the 1108th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies