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 } .s50E5EE9 { margin-left:0.5pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s8FD6C6CE { height:111.7pt } .s4C8E8372 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s53D3EE79 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 5.4pt; font-size:10pt } .sCC9E9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.7pt } .sCCE09D73 { letter-spacing:-0.5pt } .s9D943874 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sA849A7D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sCD019D73 { letter-spacing:-0.4pt } .s4967FA95 { margin:0pt 16.2pt 0pt 5.25pt; font-size:10pt } .s2C26B0A7 { height:19.75pt } .s4121890B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s6F6744C3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sDF759458 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC3B9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .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)22 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Marttinen contre Finlande     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 Marttinen (19235/03) 21/04/2009 21/07/2009   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)188E [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 ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Marttinen against Finland Application No. 19235/03 Judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009     Violation of the Convention Art. 6 § 1 Right to a fair trial. In proceedings to recover a debt from 2000-2002, the applicant was fined for refusing to give an overall account of his assets and other financial means under Chapter 3, section 34(d) of the Enforcement Act. At the same time the applicant suspected of a tax fraud concerning the same assets in other proceedings. The Court found that the determination to ensure the effectiveness of debt recovery proceedings could not justify a provision which extinguished the very essence of the applicant’s right to silence and not to incriminate himself. Type Leading case.   Individual measures   1.   The administrative fine ordered by the Helsinki District Court’s decision from 9 July 2000 was not paid as the bailiff subsequently waived the enforcement inquiry (see §24 of the judgment). The European Court held that the finding of violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage. Further, re-opening of proceedings is possible under national law. Consequently, no other measure is considered necessary.   General measures   2.   Chapter 3 of the Enforcement Act was amended with effect from 1 March 2004 and a new mechanism was introduced prohibiting the use of incriminating information to circumvent provisions on testimony or have the debtor charged with a criminal offence (see §§34 and 75 of the judgment).   3.   Further, in its precedent of 20 October of 2009, the Supreme Court (KKO: 2009:80) annulled one of its earlier judgments concerning the right not to incriminate oneself. The case did not concern the applicant of the case of Marttinen v. Finland but in its reasoning the Supreme Court referred to the case.   4.   According to the precedent, if information about a debtor’s property relates to both a pending criminal case and to enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings where this information is wanted from the debtor with the threat of punishment, the debtor is entitled to refuse to declare the property. The significance of the information from the standpoint of the debtor’s possible guilt is irrelevant.   5.   In its precedent of 30 June 2010 (KKO: 2010:49), the Supreme Court also referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to not incriminate oneself, including the case of Marttinen, as well as to its previous annulment of a judgment (KKO: 2009:80).   6.   A press release was issued the same day as the judgment. Additionally, the judgment of the European Court was sent out to the relevant national authorities, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The judgments were published in the legal database Finlex in English, along with summaries in Finnish (www.finlex.fi).   Conclusion   The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [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