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 } .s5759B93B { margin-left:9.75pt; 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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; 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)54 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Lawyers Partners 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 Lawyers Partners a.s (54252/07) 16/06/2009 06/11/2009   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(2012)71E ) [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 Lawyer Partners, a.s. v. Slovakia, (App. Nos. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08, 3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08 and 29557/08), judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 06/11/2009   Introductory case summary   This case concerns a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court due to domestic courts’ refusal in 2006 to register legal actions filed by the company in electronic form (violation of Article 6 § 1). Provision for electronic filing has been included in the Code of Civil Procedure since 2002, and the European Court of Human Rights held that the applicant company could not be reproached for having availed itself of that facility, which was entirely in keeping with the volume of cases pursued (over 70 000 actions). The European Court held that the refusal imposed a disproportionate limitation on the applicant company’s right to use efficient means to present its cases to a court. The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant company’s complaints as having been lodged outside the statutory two-month time-limit, as the applicant had earlier learned that the district courts lacked the necessary equipment and had failed to file a complaint at that time.   Since 2008 the Constitutional Court has systematically approached similar cases in the manner prescribed by the European Court, namely that the statutory time-limit for lodging a complaint commences from the date of notification of the court’s refusal to register the specific submission. In those cases the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention and ordered the ordinary courts concerned to process the actions.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   The European Court awarded the applicant company 10   000 euros as just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of real opportunities, as well as in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Further it awarded the applicant company 8   000 euros for costs and expenses. Total sum of 18   000   euros has been paid to the applicant company on 22/01/2010.   b) Other individual measures   The European Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress in such cases, in which the applicant has been denied access to a tribunal because of an unjustified refusal to register its actions, would be to register the original submissions as if they had been filed on the date when the applicant company first submitted them and to deal with them in keeping with ail the requirements of a fair trial (see § 62 of the judgment).   In the period from the end of 2006 and pending 2007 the district courts had been provided with the technical equipment for dealing with the actions signed with the qualified electronic signature. From 2008 the district courts effectively register the electronic actions.   On February 2010 the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights requested the district courts concerned to register the actions of the applicant company with the original date of submittal in 2006 or to register them with the actual date but while dealing with them, for purpose of examination of the prescription time limit, to consider them as submitted in 2006. In reply to the letter of the Agent of the Government, several district courts (Humenné District Court, Trenčin District Court, Dolný Kubín District Court, Povasžkà Bystrica District Court, Bardejov District Court, Lučenec District Court, Piešt’any District Court) informed the Office of the Agent that notwithstanding their repeated requests, the applicant company has not submitted the original electronic motions on DVD’s in order to register them and dealing with them (original electronic motions on DVD’s were returned to the applicant in 2006).   On December 2011 the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights requested the district courts concerned to submit the information whether the actions of the applicant company have been already registered and are dealt with. In reply to the letter of the Agent of the Government, Svidnik District Court, Piešt’any District Court (to which the part of the actions were transmitted from Trnava District Court) and Trnava District Court informed the Office of the Agent that all proceedings on the electronic actions submitted by the applicant company had already been terminated with final effects.   However, Dolný Kubín District Court, Nové Zàmky District Court, Rimavskà Sobota District Court, Levice District Court, Lučenec District Court, Humenné District Court, Kežmarok District Court, Bardejov District Court, Vel’ký Krtíč District Court, Trenčín District Court and Povasžkà Bystrica District Court informed the Office of the Agent that notwithstanding their repeated requests, the applicant company still has not submitted the original electronic motions on DVD’s in order to register them and dealing with them (the applicant company alleges that the original electronic motions on DVD’s were submitted to the European Court). As the district courts are fully prepared to register the electronic actions of the applicant company but the applicant company does not cooperate, the Government is of the opinion that no other measures are required.   Il.   General measures   a) Publication and dissemination   The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 10/2009. In June 2009, the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights sent the judgment and its Slovak translation to all district courts concerned.   b) Other measures   Article 42§1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended with effect from 1 May 2002, provides that submissions to a court can be made in written form, orally into the record, by means of electronic devices subject to the submission bearing a secured electronic signature in accordance with a special law, by telegraph or by fax. The violation found in this case had its base in the fact that in 2006 the district courts lacked the necessary equipment for registering the electronic actions. In the period from the end of 2006 and pending 2007 the district courts had been provided with the technical equipment for dealing with the actions signed with the qualified electronic signature. From 2008 the district courts effectively register the electronic actions.   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, 23 January 2012   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