CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8D9AE249 { margin-left:14.75pt; 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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; 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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; 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 }   Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)52 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Zubal’ against the Slovak Republic     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”) [2] ,   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;   Case name (App. No.) Judgment of Final on Zubal’ (44065/06) 09/11/2010 09/02/2011   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;   Having invited the authorities of the respondent State to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;   Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH ‑ DD(2011)956E );   Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;     DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. ACTION REPORT App. No. 44065/06 Zubal’ v. Slovakia, judgment of 09111/2010, final on 09/02/2011   Introductory case summary   This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home due to a judicial order for the search of his house, in the context of criminal proceedings against several people suspected of having produced and sold forged paintings. In June 2005, the police conducted a search of the applicant’s house, in his absence and without having heard him. The applicant had bought one of these paintings and being the injured party he would have had no reason for refusing to cooperate with police, and could have put the painting at their disposal (violation of Article 8).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total   3   000 euros - 3   000 euros Paid on 17/03/2011     II.   General measures   a) Legislation   The law of the Slovak Republic meets the requirements of the European Convention. The search of a person’s home is permissible where there is a justifiable suspicion that an abject which is important for the purposes of criminal proceedings is located therein or that a person suspected of an offence is hiding there. The law allows for the search of premises only when it has been impossible to attain the purpose of the search by means of a prior request addressed to the person whose premises are to be searched. The law requires that the person whose premises are to be searched, or an adult member of his or her household, should be allowed to be present during the search. The violation which the Court found in this case was a result of application of the law to concrete case. This was an isolated case (see §§ 37 — 39 of the judgment) and, accordingly, does not necessitate adoption of additional measures.   b) Publication and dissemination   The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 2/2011 By the letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 28 October 2011, the judgment was distributed to ail regional and district courts, to the Supreme Court, to the General Prosecutor and to the President of Police Corps in order to avoid possible similar violations. By the letter of 3 October 2011, the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to notify of the judgment (notably of the conclusions of the European Court as to the admissibility of the application) ail judges of the Constitutional Court.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.   In Bratislava, 28 October 2011   Marica Pirošíková Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights     [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. [2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the improvement of domestic remedies.