CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .sFB4D0E3C { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF5DD15CD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s68189260 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .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)220 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Pistolis and others against Greece   (Application No. 54594/07, judgment of 04 June 2009, final on 04 September 2009)     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 constraint on the applicants’ right of access to the Court of Cassation, due to its excessively formalistic approach as regards admissibility grounds (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention) (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 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 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;   Specifying however that a similar group of cases (Alvanos) is currently under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers;   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)220   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Pistolis and others against Greece     Introductory case summary   The case concerns disproportionate constraint on the applicants’ right of access to a court, in that the Court of Cassation, applying a principle enshrined in its case-law concerning the vague character of the grounds of an appeal on points of law, dismissed their appeal in 2007 on the ground that they had not specified the factual circumstances on which the court of appeal had based its judgment. This appeal was introduced against a decision of the Athens Court of Appeal, judging a suit for damages that the applicants, members of the same family, had lodged against an under-aged driver who had caused a car accident which had resulted in the death of the applicants’ 3-year-old child. The Court of Appeal had found that the child’s father was 30% liable for the accident as he had not shown the requisite diligence.   The European Court considered that in declaring the grounds of appeal inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had not specified clearly the facts of the case on which the Court of appeal had based its decision in this case, the Court of Cassation had taken an excessively formalistic approach which had prevented the applicants from having the merits of their allegations examined by that court (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 - 15 000 EUR jointly 3 000 EUR 18 000 EUR Paid on 04/12/2009   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It is not possible, under Greek law, to have this case re-examined or re-opened, following the judgment of the European Court. Considering the nature of the violation, and the fact that the applicants’ case had been considered on the merits at both first instance and appeal, the reopening of the proceedings at issue does not appear an appropriate means of achieving the effective implementation of these judgments. In this case, the aim of fully erasing the consequences of the violation found does not seem to prevail over the principle of legal certainty and of protection of the rights of third parties of good faith.     II.   General measures   The case presents similarities to other previous cases in the context of which the direct effect that the European Court’s case-law enjoys in Greek law, as well as the publication and the broad dissemination of the judgment to all judicial authorities were considered sufficient for the prevention of similar violations (see Final Resolution ResDH(2009)68 in Liakopoulou and others, 19/06/2009). However, similar issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being examined by the Committee of Ministers in the Alvanos group.   The Court’s judgment was translated and disseminated to all competent judicial authorities and is available on the website of the Legal Council of the State ( www.nsk.gr ).   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 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 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies