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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; 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 } .s86A03557 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F6AE34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s4765E34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .sDC947C45 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.45pt } .sEE9316E9 { margin-top:12.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sD7CE228C { width:27.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF8049DFD { margin-top:7.2pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s2F74E34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.5pt } .sB1E0856D { margin-top:7.2pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .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)91 [1]   Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Potapenko contre Hongrie   (Requête n o 32318/05, arrêt du 1 février 2011, définitif le 1 mai 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)373E ) [2] ;   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 intergrum   ; 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 susmentionnés   ;   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)373E )   ;   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 of 30 November 2011 Appl. No. 32318/05 Potapenko, judgement of 1/02/2011 ( Revised) Introductory case summary   The applicant, Alexandr Potapenko, is a Ukrainian national, resident in Hungary since 1986. He complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in 1998 on charges of aggravated fraud. He was acquitted in 2007. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention. Further relying on Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), he also complained that his passport had been confiscated for seven and a half years of the proceedings against him. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6§1 and Article 2§2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.   I.   Individual measures   Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicant was paid on 2 June 2011 (non-pecuniary damage 12,500 € in sum of 3,333,625 HUF). The applicant’s passport was returned to him on 11/09/2006 and he was acquitted on 26/04/2007, thereby ending the domestic proceedings, therefore no further individual measures are necessary in the execution process.   II.   General measures     a)   Legislation   The Government make reference to the fact that under paragraph a), which was in force at that time but has been repealed since then, of Section 16, subsection (1) of Act XII of 1998 on Travelling Abroad (hereinafter: “Utv”) a person subjected to pending criminal procedure for a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to five or more years, could not travel abroad until the final conclusion of the criminal procedure. On 1 July 2003, Section 308, subsection (1), paragraph b) of Act I of 2002 on the Amendment of Act XIX of 1998 on the Criminal Code repealed Section 16, subsection (1), paragraph a) of the Utv, therefore this restriction in travelling abroad was abolished. The issue of excessive length of judicial proceedings is being examined within the context of the Timâr group of cases (application no. 36186/97).     b)   Publication and dissemination   The decision was translated and the Hungarian version was published on the website of the Government ( www.kormany.hu ).   The Government sent the judgement to the Office of the National Judicial Council in order to inform the courts about the content of the judgment and to take due account of the findings of the judgment in their future practice.   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 Court in this case, and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Government note that the possibility of further similar violations ceased as a result of the above-mentioned legislative change (as regards the freedom of movement violation).   Budapest, 19 March 2012 Zoltân Tallódi Co-Agent of the Government of the Republic of Hungary [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2012 lors de la 1144e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Document en anglais uniquement