CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 décembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s98626698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)152 [1] Nedelcho Popov contre Bulgarie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 61360/00, arrêt du 22 novembre 2007, définitif le 22 février 2008)     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)924E ) [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 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)924E )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46§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 of Nedelcho Popov v. Bulgaria, application no. 61360/00, judgment of 22 November 2007, final on 22 February 2008     The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to access to a court (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) as a result of the operation of a legal provision excluding from judicial review work-related disputes concerning certain categories of employees such as the applicant, who had been holding the post of “Chief Adviser” at the Council of Ministers. The applicant was dismissed on 30 July 1997 and on the basis of the above ‑ mentioned provision his ensuing action for unfair dismissal was declared inadmissible.   1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   -   The European Court did not award pecuniary damage to the applicant, finding that his claim for compensation in respect of lost income due to the dismissal was speculative as it had not been established that had he had access to a court his claim would have been successful. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses, which the Government paid on 10 May 2008.   -   As the applicant’s claim for unfair dismissal was not examined by means of a final court judgment, it was not open for him to request re-opening of the judicial proceedings following the European Court’s judgment.   The Government does not consider that any further individual measures are necessary or possible in the case. There is no opportunity to re-open the domestic judicial proceedings and the applicant has been awarded non-pecuniary damage. At the same time the Government points out that the applicant was a highly qualified expert, his tasks as “Chief Adviser” at the Council of Ministers having included providing expert opinion on draft legislation and involvement in the organisation of national and local elections (§ 7 of the judgment), and thus following his dismissal he was possibly in a position to find appropriate employment, thus not suffering serious adverse consequences. It should be noted also that the applicant did not submit any claim before the Committee of Ministers concerning the individual measures in this case.   In the light of all these circumstances the Government believes that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violation found by the European Court.   2) GENERAL MEASURES   -   The violation of the applicant’s right to access to a court in the case resulted from a provision of the Labour Code, namely Article 360 § 2 (2)(a), which was subsequently declared by the Constitutional Court to be contrary to the Bulgarian Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention (Constitutional Court judgment No.   11 of 30 April 1998, see § 20 of the European Court’s judgment). In 2001 the provision was repealed.   -   The Court’s judgment has been translated into Bulgarian and published on the web site of the Ministry of Justice: http://www.justice.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx   The Government considers that no further general measures are necessary as there exists no likelihood of future similar violations.   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] En anglais uniquement