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 } .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 } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .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 } .s9315E1E1 { margin-left:0.28pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s75EC4CD6 { height:12pt } .s7BD42178 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s99B8C241 { 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; vertical-align:middle } .sE00AD83E { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .sE943E78A { height:11.5pt } .sD058022A { 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; vertical-align:middle } .sCB05FEC7 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .s79873DCD { 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; vertical-align:middle } .s2C68B0A7 { height:12.25pt } .sA640467F { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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)58 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Hajduova 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 Hajduova (2660/03) 30/11/2010 28/02/2011   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)962E );   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. 2660/03 Hajduova v. Slovakia, judgment of 30/11/2010, final on 28/02/2011   Introductory case summary   This case concerns a violation of the right to private and family life due to the authorities’ failure to protect the applicant from her former husband’s abusive and threatening behaviour. In January 2002, the District Court failed to ensure that her ex-husband be placed in a hospital for the purpose of psychiatric treatment immediately after his conviction for having attacked her in public and uttered death threats (violation of Article 8).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 4   000 euros 1   000 euros 5   000 euros Paid on 05/04/2011   b) Individual measures   On 22 February 2002 the District Court arranged for psychiatric treatment of the applicant’s ex-husband. He was consequently transported to a hospital in Plešivec (see §13 of the judgment). On 22   April 2002 the District Court, at suit of the hospital, changed the inpatient treatment of the applicant’s ex-husband to the outpatient treatment. According to the hospital record, the applicant’s ex-husband is conscious of the necessity of the treatment and voluntarily undergoes it, his mental condition is stable. As a result of the applicant’s successful treatment in hospital, the Government is of the opinion that no further individual measures are required.   II.   General measures   a) Legislation   In this case, Article 8 was violated because of the District Court’s failure to comply with its statutory obligation to order the applicant’s ex-husband detention for psychiatric treatment following his conviction on 7 January 2002 (see § 52 of the judgment). The case therefore does not require adoption of legislative measures and the law of the Slovak Republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention.   Under Section 445§1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the president of the chamber shall order protective treatment to the medical institution where it should be accomplished. However, if the protective treatment was imposed alongside unconditional imprisonment and the prison or hospital for accused and convicted dispose with sufficient conditions for such treatments, the president of the chamber may order the preventive treatment to be performed during imprisonment. Under Section 445§2, shall the person imposed protective treatment be dangerous for his/her community when at liberty, the president of the chamber shall without further delays provide for his/her delivery to the medical institution; otherwise he/she may be provided adequate time for procuring his/her affairs.     b) Publication and dissemination   The judgment was published in the Justična Revue No. 4/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 18 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and district courts with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of these courts. By a letter of 18 October 2011 the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all constitutional judges about it.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.   In Bratislava, 3 November 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.