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 } .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 } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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)52 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Zubal’ 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 Zubal’ (44065/06) 09/11/2010 09/02/2011   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)956E ) [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. 44065/06 Zubal’ v. Slovakia, judgment of 09111/2010, final on 09/02/2011   Introductory case summary   This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home due to a judicial order for the search of his house, in the context of criminal proceedings against several people suspected of having produced and sold forged paintings. In June 2005, the police conducted a search of the applicant’s house, in his absence and without having heard him. The applicant had bought one of these paintings and being the injured party he would have had no reason for refusing to cooperate with police, and could have put the painting at their disposal (violation of Article 8).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total   3   000 euros - 3   000 euros Paid on 17/03/2011     II.   General measures   a) Legislation   The law of the Slovak Republic meets the requirements of the European Convention. The search of a person’s home is permissible where there is a justifiable suspicion that an abject which is important for the purposes of criminal proceedings is located therein or that a person suspected of an offence is hiding there. The law allows for the search of premises only when it has been impossible to attain the purpose of the search by means of a prior request addressed to the person whose premises are to be searched. The law requires that the person whose premises are to be searched, or an adult member of his or her household, should be allowed to be present during the search. The violation which the Court found in this case was a result of application of the law to concrete case. This was an isolated case (see §§ 37 — 39 of the judgment) and, accordingly, does not necessitate adoption of additional measures.   b) Publication and dissemination   The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 2/2011 By the letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 28 October 2011, the judgment was distributed to ail regional and district courts, to the Supreme Court, to the General Prosecutor and to the President of Police Corps in order to avoid possible similar violations. By the letter of 3 October 2011, the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to notify of the judgment (notably of the conclusions of the European Court as to the admissibility of the application) ail judges of the Constitutional Court.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.   In Bratislava, 28 October 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