CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 septembre 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 } .s5A507FBE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF5DD15CD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s778B1DA3 { width:97.48%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sF563A697 { width:20.12%; 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 } .sCF7A3F11 { width:11.72%; 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 } .sFAF20ABF { width:20.66%; 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 } .s5F375DA2 { width:22.42%; 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 } .sF38F7DD3 { width:25.1%; 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 } .s4E6898A5 { width:20.12%; 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 } .sF78530BD { width:11.72%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s43764197 { width:20.66%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE7466697 { width:22.42%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB4E9814F { width:25.1%; 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 } .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 } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s80CF0BD7 { width:11.72%; 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:5.4pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2D98998B { width:20.66%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s7F8E7FB3 { width:22.42%; 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:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2B695FEB { width:25.1%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-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 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8F909608 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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)99 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Reslová, Andĕlová, Koudelka, Fiala, Kříž, Mezl and Zavřel against Czech Republic   (Reslová, application No. 7550/04, judgment of 18 July 2006, final on 18 October 2006 Andĕlová, application No. 995/06, judgment 28 February 2008, final on 29 September 2008) Koudelka, application No. 1633/05, judgment of 20 July 2006, final on 20 September 2006 Fiala, application No. 26141/03, judgment of 18July 2006, final on 11 December 2006 Kříž, application No. 26634/03, judgment of 09 January 2007, final on 09 April 2007 Mezl, application No. 27726/03, judgment of 09 January 2007, final on 09 April 2007 Zavřel, application No. 14044/05, 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 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 failure to enforce the applicants’ visiting rights to their children (violations of Article 8), in the Reslová, Fiala, Kříž and Mezl cases as well as the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) and lack of an effective remedy (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, 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(2011)99   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Reslová, Andĕlová, Koudelka, Fiala, Kříž, Mezl and Zavřel against Czech Republic     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the domestic courts’ failure to exercise special diligence in proceedings concerning parental rights and to enforce the applicants’ visiting rights (violations of Article 8). The Reslová, Fiala, Kříž and Mezl cases also concern the excessive length of the civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The Fiala case concerns moreover the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the length of proceedings (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 Reslová (7550/04) - 5   000 EUR 800 EUR 5   800 EUR   Paid on 28/12/2006 Andĕlová (995/06) - 4   000 EUR 850 EUR 4850 EUR   Paid on 12/03/2009 Koudelka (1633/05) - 13 000 EUR 1 299 EUR 14 299 EUR   Paid on 6/12/2006 Fiala (26141/03)   No just satisfaction awarded     Kříž (26634/03) - 10   000 EUR 1128 EUR 11   128 EUR   Paid on 18/06/2007 Mezl (27726/03) - 10   000 EUR 802 EUR 10   802 EUR   Paid on 3/07/2007 Zavřel (14044/05) - 6   000 EUR - 6   000 EUR   Paid on 3/07/2007   b) Individual measures   The children of the applicants in the Koudelka, Křiž, Andělova and Mezl cases, have reached the age of majority. In the Reslová case the applicant’s eldest child has reached majority. The applicant’s visiting rights in respect of her second child were established by the national courts in 2007, after the judgment of the European Court. In the Zavrěl case, the applicant’s visiting rights were also established by the national courts in 2007, after the judgment of the European Court. In the Fiala case, the European Court’s judgment did not call into question the custody rights in place at the time (§105 of the judgment).   Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.   II.   General measures   1) Violations of Article 6§1 and Article 13: measures concerning these violations are being examined in the context of the Bořánková group (41486/98).     2) Violation of Article 8 : i) Legislative changes : Act No. 295/2008 amending the Code of Civil Procedure and the Act on Social and Legal Protection of Children entered into force on 1 October 2008. The amendments concerning in particular child custody proceedings, execution of court decisions concerning minors and co-operation of local authorities in execution proceedings, were adopted with a view to ensuring speedy decision-making in proceedings concerning children, developing the possibility of mediation and peaceful settlement of disputes between parents and underlining courts’ obligation to seek the child’s opinion.   Consequently, in matters concerning minor children (except in cases of domestic violence), courts may now stay proceedings for up to three months and order the parties to take part in out-of-court conciliation or mediation meetings or family therapy. These measures are now being applied and the courts have already delivered judgments endorsing parental agreements concluded in such out-of-court meetings. By virtue of an interim measure, courts may also order placement of a child whose life or favourable development are threatened, in a “suitable environment” during the necessary period. Immediate execution of such an interim measure is ensured by the courts in co-operation with other authorities and appeals against interim measures have to be dealt with within 15 days. On 30/09/2008, the Ministry of Justice published an indicative list of institutions for child victims of parental conflicts, together with information on services provided and target groups.   The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on the execution of court decisions concerning minor children has been completely rewritten. The former initial phase, consisting of giving advice and requesting voluntary discharge of obligations, has become part of trial proceedings. Repeated fines, which have often proved ineffective in the past, should now be limited to cases in which this approach is useful, courts being required to substantiate it. Courts may also order parents not fulfiling their obligations to participate in out-of-court meetings or therapy or to set out a plan for an “adaptation regime” enabling gradual contacts, which should be accompanied by an expert opinion, in enforcement proceedings. If these measures appear unsuccessful, forced reunion of the parent with the child may be ordered.   ii) Dissemination and training : The judgments of the European Court have been translated, published on the website of the Ministry of Justice ( www.justice.cz ) and sent out to the authorities concerned (courts and child welfare authorities). Moreover, the Court’s case-law in the field of family life as well as the amended rules of the Code of Civil Procedure are the regular subject of seminars held at the Judicial Academy and regional courts. A seminar for child-care judges was held in autumn 2008, a seminar for judges of district and regional courts on family law was held in January 2009. Another seminar on the amendments of the Code of Civil Procedure was organised for first-instance court judges in March 2009. Seminars for court officers and bailiffs concerning the execution of decisions involving minor children were held in April 2009.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   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, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies