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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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)153 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Frizen against Russian Federation   (Application No. 58254/00, judgment of 24 March 2005, final on 30 November 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 referred to as “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 interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions due to the unlawful forfeiture of her property to the state authorities (violation of 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 in order to comply with Russia’s 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;   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)153   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Frizen against Russian Federation     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s property rights due to the forfeiture of her car in the criminal proceedings conducted against her husband which resulted in his conviction. The European Court observed that the domestic courts did not refer to any legal provision authorising the forfeiture, either in the criminal proceedings against the applicant’s husband or in the civil proceedings which she initiated. The European Court found that having regard to the Russian authorities’ consistent failure to indicate a legal provision that could be construed as the basis for the forfeiture of the applicant’s property, the interference with the applicant’s property rights could not be considered “lawful” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     I.   Individual measures   The European Court observed that the applicant had submitted no claim for just satisfaction within the specified time-limit. In these circumstances, the European Court made no award of just satisfaction.   According to the Russian authorities, the applicant did not lodge any claim before the domestic courts, following the judgment of the European Court. Consequently, no individual measure appears necessary.     II.   General measures   The Russian authorities indicated that this violation constituted an isolated incident. They indicated in particular that no similar applications had subsequently been lodged with the Court.   The Russian authorities further underlined that, according to Russian law, only property of those who are convicted may be subject to confiscation (part two of Article 2, paragraph "g" of the first part of Article 104 1 of the Criminal Code, paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This understanding of the domestic law was affirmed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its Decision No.   6 ‑ П/2011 of 25   April 2011.   By a circular letter of 13 July 2006 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court sent out the judgment to all courts. The Court’s judgment was published in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights (Russian version) in 2006.   According to the Russian authorities, publication and dissemination of the judgment should guarantee that the domestic courts align their practice with the requirements of the Convention under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as they result from the present case.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that it has executed the judgment in that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Russian Federation has accordingly fulfilled its obligations pursuant to 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.