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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8D9AE249 { margin-left:14.75pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sEAD70FA9 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s241BF43A { 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:middle } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s9BC8888 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:12pt } .s444C90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:12pt } .sF9A6C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:12pt } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; 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 } .s40216698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)243 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Perdigão against Portugal   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”) [2] ,   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;   Case name (App. No.) Judgment of Final on Perdigão (Application No. 24768/06) 16/11/2010 16/11/2010   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 as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;   Having invited the authorities of the respondent state to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;   Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see appendix);   Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;     DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)243   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Perdigão against Portugal   Action report on the execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of João José Perdigão and Maria José Queiroga Perdigão (application No. 24768/06) against Portugal   ORIGINAL FRENCH   I.   IDENTIFICATION OF THE CASE   Date of judgment: 16 November 2010 (Grand Chamber)   Application No.: 24768/06   Names of the applicants: João José Perdigão and Maria José Queiroga Perdigão   Brief description of the violation: Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (domestic proceedings brought by the applicants concerning the expropriation of a building of which they were owners; the sum paid by the applicants in court fees was higher than the amount awarded to them in compensation for the expropriation).   II.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   The European Court awarded the applicants an amount in respect of all heads of damage (see paragraph 86 of the judgment). Given that the just satisfaction covers both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, with the payment of the amount awarded by the Court all damage sustained by the applicants has been redressed, and thus no further individual measure is necessary.   (a) Payment of just satisfaction (see just satisfaction form provided to the secretariat) (b) Amount: 191 285,65 EUR (c) Date: 12/04/2011 (d) Other:   III.   GENERAL MEASURES   (a) Publication, communication and diffusion: The judgment was immediately put on line on the official website of the Procuradoria-Geral da República – Office of Documentation and Comparative Law, translated into Portuguese and communicated to the High Judicial Commission for diffusion, and to the President of the constitutional Court ( Tribunal Constitucional ).   (b) Other: The Court Fees Code then in force, on the basis of which the fees paid by the applicants were calculated, has since been modified. The new Code now fixes a ceiling making it impossible to fix such large amounts (as the European Court of Human Rights acknowledged in paragraph 77 of the judgment – see also paragraphs 45 and 46).   In particular, the Court noted (paragraph 77) that: “the enactment, on 24 February 2008, of the new Court Fees Code, which placed an upper limit on the sums that could be charged in court fees. If the new rules had been applied in the instant case, the court fees imposed would have been considerably lower (see paragraphs 45 and 46 above). The new rules thus seem less likely to give rise to a situation such as that which arose in the present case.”   IV.   CONCLUSION   Taking into account the fact that, as a result of the amount paid to the applicants, they have been compensated for the damage resulting from the violation found and the entry into force of the new Court Fees Code (Decree-Law No. 34/2008 of 26 February 2008) which makes such violations no longer possible, the Portuguese authorities consider that the measures set out above are sufficient to execute the judgment and that it is not necessary to adopt further individual or general measures. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies [2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies.