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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; 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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)11 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Bistrović contre Croatie     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 Bistrović (25774/05) 31/05/2007 31/08/2007   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 bilan d’action, document DH-DD(2011)1130 [3] )   ;   Ayant noté que   l’Etat défendeur a versé aux parties requérantes 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 CASE: Bistrović v. Croatia, application no. 25774/05, Judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007   In its Judgment of March 31 2007, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) due to the Croatian authorities’ failure to establish all the relevant factors, including the reduction of the value of the remaining land, when assessing the compensation payable on the expropriation of part of the applicants’ farm.   1.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   On 21/10/2008, Varaždin County Court granted the applicant’s request for reopening of proceedings based on the ECtHR judgment in accordance with section 428(a) of the Civil Procedure Act. In reopened proceedings, on 26/02/2009 the County Court quashed the contested decision of the State Administration Office of Varaždin County (hereinafter: the Office) of 16/04/2003 and remitted the case to the same Office for re-examination.   Therefore, the applicants exercised their right to reopen the proceedings that are the subject of their complaint before the ECtHR.   In reopened expropriation proceedings before the State Administration Office of Varaždin County, an authorized expert witness assessed all the relevant factors for determining the compensation for the applicants’ expropriated property (such as traffic frequency, noise exposure, other missions etc.).   On 02/06/2011, the Office delivered a new decision on the expropriation of the applicants’ farm and awarded compensation for expropriation in the amount of 623.4678,62 HRK in total (cca 83.763.46 EUR).   The decision regarding the compensation to be awarded to the applicants for the expropriation of their farm became final on 02/06/2011.   2.   GENERAL MEASURES   The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice ( http://www.mprh.hr/) )   The judgment has been disseminated to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Varaždin County Court. Therefore, relevant authorities have been informed of the findings of the ECtHR in this case.   Since this was the only ECtHR judgment against Croatia concerning the application of the Expropriation Act (Official Gazette, nos. 9/94, 35/94, 112/00, 114/01, 79/06, 45/11) which was contrary of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Government emphasizes that the violation found by the ECtHR in this case is individual.   General measures undertaken in the execution of the judgment in this case, as described above, are sufficient to avoid similar violations in the future.   3.   JUST SATISFACTION   Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage has been paid within a designated deadline on 30 October 2007. Payment information was delivered to the Department for the Execution of Judgments on 21 November 2007.   4.   CONCLUSIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT   In light of all measures taken, the Government deems that no other measures, individual or general, are required to assure that no future violations of this kind occur.   Therefore, the Government proposes to the Committee of Ministers to close the supervision procedure and adopt a final resolution in accordance with Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements. [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