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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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)221 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Bigaeva against Greece   (Application No. 26713/05, judgment of 28 May 2009, final on 28 August 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 applicant’s right to respect for her professional life because of the rejection of her request to sit for examinations with a view to being admitted to the Athens Bar Association (violation of article 8) (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)221   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Bigaeva against Greece     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her professional life because of the rejection in 2002 of her request to sit for examinations with a view to being admitted to the Athens Bar Association. The European Court underlined that the domestic authorities, who did not raise the issue of the applicant’s nationality until the end of the process, had allowed the applicant by mistake to carry out her pupilage and left her with hope, even though she was clearly not going to be entitled to sit for the subsequent examinations. They had thus shown a lack of coherence and respect towards the applicant and her professional life (violation of Article   8).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total   7   000 EUR 4   400 EUR 11   400 EUR Paid on 24/11/2009   b) Individual measures The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Regarding the conditions of access to the lawyer’s profession, the European Court considered that it was for the national authorities, which enjoy a margin of appreciation in defining the conditions of access to the lawyer’s profession, to decide on whether the Greek nationality or the nationality of a European Union member state could be a required condition for this purpose. The Court concluded that it was not its task to substitute itself for the competent national authorities’ appreciation, which decided pursuant to aArticle 3 of the Code for Lawyers not to allow the applicant to participate in the examinations organised by the Athens Bar Association, with its own. In view of a lack of arbitrariness the Court cannot question the reasons that led the national authorities to consider this choice, based on an objective and reasonable justification (§ 40) Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   The Court indicated that the violation found resulted from the Bar Association’s behaviour in the case (§§31, 33). The European Court’s judgment, translated into Greek, was widely disseminated, especially to the Athens Bar Association. The translation is also available on the website of the Legal Council of the State ( www.nsk.gov.gr ).   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations 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