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 } .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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; 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)18 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Suda against the Czech 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 Suda (1643/06) 28/10/2010 28/01/2011   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)1023E );   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.     Report of the Government of the Czech Republic on the execution of judgment in case no. 1643/06 – Suda v. the Czech Republic     In its judgment of 28 October 2010 the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, namely of the applicant’s right of access to a court established by law, resulting from his obligation to submit his dispute to private arbitrators. The judgment became final on 28 January 2011 according to Article 44 § 2 (b) of the Convention. The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers about the individual and general measures of execution of the judgment.   I.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   The Government consider that the Court’s judgment, related to a dispute between two private entities, does not require them to introduce any other individual measures going beyond the payment to the applicant of just satisfaction awarded by the Court as reimbursement of costs and expenses. This is supplemented by the fact that the Court did not find any damage that would emerge in causal connection with the violation found. Thus there seems to be no call for, e.g., reopening of the final decisions of domestic courts in order to provide the applicant with a fresh opportunity to initiate civil law proceedings dealing with the amount of compensation before ordinary domestic courts.   II.   GENERAL MEASURES   As already acknowledged by the Court in § 15 of the judgment, Section 220k (1) was deleted from the Commercial Code as of 1 July 2008 by new Act no. 125/2008 (Companies and Cooperatives Transformations Act) which does not contain any similar provision providing for arbitrators’ jurisdiction established by a contract between third parties in comparable situations. It follows that at present, occurrence of violation of the Convention similar to the present case is no longer possible. Therefore, no further systemic measures to prevent analogous violations in the future are required.   III.   CONCLUSION   The Government of the Czech Republic are of the opinion that they have taken all the measures of execution of the Court’s judgment in Suda v. the Czech Republic.   Prague, 16 September 2011.   Vít A. Schorm Government Agent before the Court signed electronically     [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.