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 } .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 } .sD7CE228C { width:27.11pt; 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 } .s50014358 { width:26.56pt; 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)53 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Lexa 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 Lexa (34761/03) 05/01/2010 05/04/2010   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)1165E ) [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. 34761/03 Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 2), judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010   Introductory case summary   This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right adequately to challenge the grounds for his detention (violation of Article 5 § 4). The applicant, a former director of the Slovakian intelligence service, was arrested in December 2002 on charges of incitement to commit murder, abuse of authority and mishandling of classified state secrets. The applicant lodged a complaint against the Bratislava I District Courts decision to remand him in custody. On 7 January 2003 he requested that his counsel should be allowed to consult the file. The regional court allowed the counsel to examine the file from 9 to 12 a. m. on 14 January 2003. It dismissed the applicant’s complaint at a session held in camera on 14 January 2003, shortly after the applicant’s counsel had consulted the file. The applicant was released in June 2003 and the proceedings against him were discontinued in September 2006 for lack of proof.   The European Court considered that although the regional court allowed the applicant’s counsel to consult the file, neither he nor the applicant had had sufficient opportunity to take cognisance of the evidence; they had had no practical possibility of submitting arguments, written or oral, to challenge its reliability (§§ 72-73 of the judgment).   I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a)   Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total   2   000 euros 5   000 euros 7   000 euros Paid on 06/07/2010     b)   Individual measures   The violation found appears to be of an isolated nature. No other individual measures seem to be necessary.   II. General measures   a) Legislation   Article 69§1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Act no. 301/2005 Coll.), effective from 1 January 2006, gives the accused person the right to consult the file with certain restrictions enumerated therein. Article 69 § 2 provides that, at the pre-trial stage, the public prosecutor or the police authority can only refuse a person access to a file concerning him or her for exceptional reasons, mainly if no such measures preventing the frustration or substantial hindering in accomplishing the purpose of the criminal proceedings may be taken. The prosecutor shall be obliged to speedily review the gravity of the reasons upon which the law enforcement authority rejected such right upon the individual’s request affected by the rejection. If the right to consult the file and the remaining right in connection therewith listed in section 1 were rejected by the prosecutor upon grave reasons upon the individual’s request affected by the rejection, the superior prosecutor shall be obliged to speedily review the reasonability of such rejection.   With effect from 1 February 2009, under Article 69§6, the pre-trial judge shall have identical rights as the law enforcement authority has if dealing with the file within its competence during the proceedings. However, if the pre-trial judge in the proceedings on detention prior to taking the decision on it rejects the accused or the counsel the right to consult the entire file, concurrently with the rejection of such right it shall mark and grant access of such consultation to the accused or its counsel to those parts of the file containing facts or evidence considered in deciding on detention pursuant to Articles 71 to 87 and 339. The Code of Criminal Procedure (the Act no. 301/2005 Coll.) was not in force at the time of the violation in this case but that nonetheless, the applicant benefitted from a similar provision under Article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act no. 141/1961 Coll.) then in force.   The law of the Slovak Republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the case does not require adoption of legislative measures.     b) Publication and dissemination The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 4/2010. The judgment was sent to the General Prosecutor, to the Constitutional Court, to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and was distributed to all regional and district courts.   III. Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.     In Bratislava, 13 December 2011   Marica Pirošiková Agent 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