CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 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 } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .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)13 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Trgo against Croatia     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 Trgo (35298/04) 11/06/2009 11/09/2009   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)364 );   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 its examination thereof.   ACTION REPORT CASE: Trgo v. Croatia Application no. 35298/04, Judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009     In its judgment, the ECtHR found a violation of Article I of Protocol 1 to the Convention, because the domestic courts had refused to acknowledge his ownership of certain plots of land he had acquired by adverse possession. The ECtHR found that the consequences of a mistake by the State authority - enacting unconstitutional legislation - had to be borne by the State and not the individual.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   The applicant requested reopening of proceedings before the Municipal Court in Makarska. The applicants’ request was rejected since it was lodged out of time. On 23 July 2010 Split County Court confirmed that decision. Under Croatian law, decisions of county courts as courts of second instance are final on the day of their passing. Therefore, domestic proceedings in the applicant’s case have ended.   GENERAL MEASURES   The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice ( http://www.mprh.hr/Default.aspx?sec=446).   The judgment has also been disseminated to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, County Court in Split, Municipal Court in Makarska, State Attorney’s Office, County State Attorney’s Office in Split, Legislation Committee of the Croatian Parliament, Legislation Office of the Government of RoC and Civil Law Directorate of the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, the relevant authorities have been informed of the findings of the ECtHR in this case.   The Government draws attention to the fact that this is an individual violation. Therefore, no other general measure beyond publication and dissemination is necessary.   JUST SATISFACTION   The ECtHR held that finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.   The Government deems that no other measures (individual or general) are required to execute the judgment.   Therefore, the Government proposes to the Committee of Ministers the closure of the execution supervision procedure, and the adoption of a final resolution (Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements).     [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.