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 } .sC3302E7B { height:110.85pt } .s4C8E8372 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s469BF4F6 { margin:0pt 52.2pt 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 } .sA6954127 { margin:0pt 10.8pt 0pt 5.25pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCCBF9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.6pt } .s770B7CE2 { letter-spacing:-0.45pt } .s9DC559DB { margin:0pt 10.8pt 0pt 5.25pt; font-size:10pt } .s57395D7A { height:28.35pt } .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 } .sDDFD4433 { margin:0pt 0.5pt } .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)23 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Suuripää 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 Suuripää (43151/02) 12/01/2010 12/04/2010   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(2012)189 [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 / ACTION PLAN ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Suuripää against Finland Application No. 43151/02, Judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010     Violation of the Convention Art. 6 Right to a fair trial. In the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Supreme Court on 13 June 2002 reversed the lower court’s judgment to his disadvantage without holding an oral hearing. (§§ 47and 48 of the judgment) Art. 6 § 1 Excessive length of criminal proceedings, three years and eleven months at two levels of jurisdiction (8 July 1998 – 13 June 2002) Type Leading case.     Individual measures   Just satisfaction   1.   Just satisfaction, in total EUR 8.750, has been paid by the Government. See the document enclosed. Other measures   2.   The proceedings in issue are now closed. Further, the re-opening of criminal proceedings is possible under the national law. No other individual measures are necessary.   General measures   3.   In general, the Supreme Court has the possibility to hold a hearing: under Chapter 30, section 20, subsection 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the Supreme Court shall hold a hearing where necessary (see §27 of the judgment). The violation arose from an isolated decision by the Supreme Court not to hold a hearing in this case.   4.   In view of the direct effect of the Convention and its case-law in Finnish legal system, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all judicial authorities are useful to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment has been disseminated to the Helsinki Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Finance.   5.   In relation to the violation concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, see Kangasluoma v Finland 48339/99).   6.   The summary of the judgement has been published on the Government’s website on national legislation and case law (www.finlex.fi) in Finnish. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs also gave a press release on the case the same day the judgement was issued.   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