CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 8 mars 2012

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s46C378D1 { margin-left:24.75pt; 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s114AEA21 { font-size:9pt } .s40B7A780 { 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:top } .s4F2EDFF { 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 } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)51 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme DMD group, A.S contre République slovaque     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   ») [2] ,   Vu l’arrêt ci-dessous, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité une fois qu’il est devenu définitif   ;   Nom de l’affaire (réf. requête) Arrêt du Définitif le DMD GROUP, A.S (19334/03) 05/10/2010 05/01/2011   Rappelant que les constats de violation faits par la Cour exigent, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée dans les arrêts, l’adoption par l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire, de mesures individuelles mettant fin aux violations et effaçant autant que possible les conséquences de celles-ci pour le requérant, et de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité les autorités de l’Etat défendeur à fournir un plan d’action concernant les mesures proposées pour exécuter l’arrêt;   Ayant examiné, conformément aux Règles du Comité pour l’application de l’article 46, paragraphe   2, de la Convention, le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement (voir le bilan d’action, document DH ‑ DD(2011)1150E ) [3]   ;   Ayant noté que   l’Etat défendeur a versé à la partie requérante la satisfaction équitable prévue dans l’arrêt ;     DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.     ACTION REPORT App. No. 19334/03 DMD GROUP, a. s. v. Slovakia, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011   Introductory case summary   This case concerns a violation of the right to a hearing before a tribunal established by law due to the decision by the president of a district court in June 1999 to reassign to himself a case (brought by the applicant company seeking enforcement of a financial claim against a major company involved in arms production) and then rule on it in private in the same day (violation of Article 6 § 1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total   4   000 euros - 4   000 euros Paid on 04/02/2011   b) Individual measures   Since 24 June 2005 the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possibility to reopen the domestic proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Section   228   §   1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the proceedings may challenge a final judgment by a petition seeking to reopen the proceedings if there exists a decision delivered by European Court of Human Rights, in which it found that a decision taken by national court, or the proceedings preceding such a decision, had violated the fundamental rights or freedoms of the party to the proceedings, whereby substantial consequences arising from such violation have not been duly remedied by the awarded just satisfaction. Under Section 230 § 1, a petition for reopening of proceedings must be filed within the time limit of three months from the day on which the person proposing the reopening learned about the reason for reopening or from the day on which he/she could use this reason (a subjective time limit). Pursuant to Section 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the cases referred to in Section 228 § 1 (d), a petition for reopening of proceedings may also be filed after the expiry of the period of three years from the day on which the judgment became final (an objective time limit).   No other individual measures seem to be necessary.   II.   General measures   a) Legislation   The Regulation no. 66/1992 Coll. on the Administrative Rules for District and Regional Courts had been in force until 1 January 2006. Since then the new legal regulation is in force. The recent legal regulation on assigning cases to judges (chambers) including court officers is regulated by Act no.   757/2004 Coll. on Courts and the Regulation of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic no.   543/2005 Coll. on the Administering and Secretarial Rules for district courts, regional courts, the Special Court and military courts.   The basic rule for assigning cases to judges is that of their random assigning, using whereby the technical as well program means designated for this purpose - the so called electronic registry. Cases are assigned by random selection to judges, chambers and court officers according to the subject matter of the proceedings which means that upon receiving the petition by the court registry the court employee shall immediately register it with the respective court registry and run the system of random selection (generation) of the legal judge. After terminating the random selection the employee of the court registry shall issue the party to the proceedings a confirming receipt of the petition containing data about the legal judge in charge in the given case. The Act expressly defines exemptions from assigning cases via electronic registry being some of the decisions issued in the pre-trial proceedings upon the Code of Criminal Procedure which must be handled without further delay (for example taking into custody, establishing the legal counsel etc.) or which are subject to confidential regime (the use of info-technical means), or as the case may be, certain decisions in civil proceedings (for instance preliminary measures in case of domestic violence), where the use of the electronic registry is limited only during the usual working time of the court.   In these instances cases are not assigned randomly by means of electronic registry but according to the rules established in the courts work schedule. Cases of execution (such as in case of DMD Group, a.s. v. Slovakia) do not belong within these exceptions. In general, the appointed court employee, i.e. the senior court officer shall decide in execution cases thus are these assigned to the latter by random selection. Judges shall exceptionally be assigned execution cases (for instance in knocking down to an auction) and if yes, by random assigning thereof. The law of the Slovak republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the legislation now in force will prevent similar violations in the future.   b) Publication and dissemination   The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue ( Justična Revue ) No. 2/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 17 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and district courts and to the Supreme Court with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of these courts. By a letter of 3 October 2011 the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all constitutional judges about it.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.   In Bratislava, 7 December 2011   Marica Pirošíková Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 8 mars 2012 lors de la 1136e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] voir aussi les recommandations adoptées par le Comité des Ministres dans le cadre de la supervision des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, et en particulier la Recommandation   Rec(2004)6 du Comité des Ministres aux Etats membres sur l'amélioration des recours internes. [3] Document en anglais uniquement