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 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sAA851F8E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s467672CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:18pt; text-align:center } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBE30FE25 { text-align:justify; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5038DA2B { width:27.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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)169 [1] Boychev et autres contre Bulgarie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 77185/01, arrêt du 27/01/2011, définitif le 27/04/2011)     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 les violations constatées (voir document DH-DD(2012)1058E ) [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 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)1058E )   ;   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 Boychev and others v. Bulgaria Application No 77185/01, Judgment of 27/01/2011, Final on 27/04/2011                   Convention violation found   This case concerns the interference with the right of the applicants (followers of the Unification Church founded by Sun Myung Moon) to manifest their religion due to the interruption of a religious meeting in 1997 and to the search and seisure of documents and other items conducted by the police in the absence of legal basis in domestic law meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention (violation of Article 9). It also concerns the lack of effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article   9).                   Individual measures   a) The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicants’ account on 06.07.2011.   b) The case concerns the police intervention at a religious meeting on 6 April 1997 of the applicants’ organization. According to the most recent information we have from the Blagoevgrad District Court the applicants did not avail themselves of the possibility to request the restitution of the remaining seized objects (books and video recordings) after April 2001 (when was delivered the last instance court’s decision in their case at domestic level).   No individual measures seem to be appropriate in this case                   General measures   a)                    legislative measures and current judicial practice   According to the Court’s judgment, at the relevant time the public prosecutor had under Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an almost unrestricted discretionary power, a situation which was incompatible with the minimum degree of protection required by the rule of law.   Secondly, Bulgarian law was unclear as to the possibility of holding a religious meeting when the organisation in question had not been registered (there was a discrepancy between law and practice, so that the applicants could not have known what conduct to adopt). The interference in question had thus lacked legal basis meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention.   Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which concerned the obligation for prosecutors to take measures in order to prevent a crime has been revoked in 2003. Latter, in 2005 a new Code of Criminal Procedure has been adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament which does not contain such provision. On the other hand, in a judgment of May 2001, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed its stance that religious associations do not need to be registered in order to hold religious meetings (see § 34 of the Boychev judgment).   Finally, a new Religious Denominations Act has been adopted which provides that a judicial body - the Sofia City Court - and no longer the executive, is competent to register religious communities wishing to obtain legal personality.   The current legal framework is in full compliance with the requirements of the Convention. As regards the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the authorities consider that following to changes in the legislative framework and practice presented above and the conclusions in the judgment delivered given by the European Court, the domestic courts will not fail to comply with the Convention requirements while examining similar complaints in the future.   b) publication and dissemination of the judgment   The translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of justice website at www.justice.government.bg/ The translation of the judgment will be sent to the competent national authorities.   No other measures inc. any legislative amendments seem to be necessary for execution of the judgment.   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] En anglais uniquement