CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 juin 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 } .s857F8CCC { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s97D52449 { width:7.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF1E2154C { font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5CB3FABE { margin-left:27.6pt; widows:0; orphans:0; padding-left:8.25pt; font-family:serif } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; 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)72 [1]   Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Majski (n o 2) contre Croatie   (Requête n o 16924/08, arrêt du 19/07/2011, définitif le 19/10/2011)     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   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)396E ) ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -      de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -      de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)396E ) ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées   ;   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   CASE TITLE: MAJSKI (2) V. CROATIA, APPLICATION NO.:16924/08, JUDGMENT OF 19/07/2011, FINAL ON: 19/10/2011       In its judgment in the Majski (2) case the ECtHR found a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the refusal of domestic courts to examine his case on merits, despite the fact that the State Attorneys Council had informed him to resort to a wrong remedy (violation of Article 6§1).     1.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES     Following the final judgment of the ECtHR, under Article 428a of the Croatian Code of Civil Procedure in relation to Article 60 of the Law on Administrative Disputes (Official Gazette No. 53/91, 9/92 and 77/92) the applicant had the right to file a petition for the reopening of proceedings within 30 days after the ECtHR judgment became final.     The applicant submitted his petition for reopening of proceedings based on the ECtHR judgment on 19 November 2011.     On 1 February 2012 the High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for reopening of proceedings, as it was lodged out of time (the deadline for filing such a petition expired on 18 November 2011).     2.   GENERAL MEASURES   translation, publication and dissemination of the judgment     The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and disseminated to the relevant authorities — the Constitutional Court of RoC and the High Administrative Court. The judgment is published on the web pages of the Ministry of Justice ( www.mprh.hr ).   legislative changes     The respondent state wishes to inform the Committee of Ministers of the legislative changes undertaken in the Law on Administrative Disputes which are relevant for this case. The new Law on Administrative Disputes ("Official Gazzette", No. 22/10) entered into force on 1 January 2012. It regulates proceedings in administrative disputes before Administrative Courts in the first degree and the High Administrative Court in the second degree.     The new Law on Administrative Disputes stipulates that the court shall see to it that the ignorance of parties in the administrative dispute does not harm their rights prescribed by law.     The Law also prescribes that when the administrative action is flawed, the court shall call upon the plaintiff to remedy the deficiency within a set time-limit. The same rule applies in appellate proceedings regarding the deficiencies of an appeal.     Regarding the uncertainty about remedies available against decisions of the State Attorney’ s Council, the Government submits that the uncertainty was remedied by interpretation of Administrative Court on 17 November 2004, as the ECtHR itself noted in §70 of the judgment. The Administrative Court held that such decisions could only be challenged by a request for the protection of constitutionally guaranteed right.     The legislative changes undertaken, along with the dissemination and publication of the judgment are sufficient to ensure that no further violations of this kind occur.   3.   JUST SATISFACTION     Just satisfaction awarded to the applicant has been paid in two instalments due to a mistake in translation of the judgment. The amount of 1.800 euros (converted into Croatian kunas on the day of payment) was paid to the applicant’s representative on 18 November 2011 and an additional amount of 1.200 euros (converted into Croatian kunas on the day of payment) was paid to the applicant’s representative on 13 December 2011. Total amount awarded was paid within the 3 month deadline. Payment information on two prescribed forms was delivered to the Execution’s Department on December 23, 2012.     CONCLUSION     The Government deems that all necessary measures for the execution of the judgment in this case have been taken, and therefore 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] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2012 lors de la 1144e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.