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 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; 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 } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8D5091A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sCB1CE216 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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)171 [1] Kaura contre Finlande Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 40350/05, arrêt du 23 juin 2009, définitif le 23 septembre 2009)   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)1040E ) [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)1040E )   ;   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 ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Respondent State Finland Application no. 40350/05 Name Kaura Judgement 23/06/2009 Final 23/09/2009 Violation of the Convention Art. 6 § 1 Unfairness of administrative proceedings due to a refusal by the Insurance Court to hold an oral hearing. The proceedings concerned the applicant’s civil rights and obligations initiated by him in 2000–2005 against the authorities’ refusal to pay him unemployment benefit because he had failed to respond promptly to a potential employer.   Art. 6 § 1 Excessive length of the same administrative proceedings, which started on 26 October 2000 when the applicant appealed to the Unemployment Appeal Board and ended on 2 June 2005 when the Insurance Court delivered a final decision in the case. Type Leading case   Individual measures Just satisfaction   1. Just satisfaction, in total EUR 5,915.40, has been paid by the Government. Other measures   2. The proceedings in question have completed. Further, the re-opening of the domestic proceedings is possible under national legislation. No other individual measure appears necessary.   General Measures 1. In general, the Insurance Court has the possibility to hold an oral hearing. Under section 38, subsection 1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (Act No. 586/1996, as amended by Act No. 433/1999), an administrative court shall conduct an oral hearing if a private party so requests (see §36 of the judgment). According to section 39, subsection 4 of the Unemployment Security Act (Act No. 602/1984, as amended by Act No. 301/1999), in force at the relevant time, the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act applies also to the proceedings before the Unemployment Appeal Board (see §15 of the judgment). The violation in this case arose from an isolated decision by the Insurance Court to reject the applicant’s request and not to hold a hearing. The European Court found that, the question of the credibility of the statements of the persons involved could not, as a matter of fair hearing, be properly determined without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the applicant as well as the employer (§37 of the judgment).   Dissemination and publication 2. In view of the direct effect of the Convention and its case-law in Finnish legal system, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all judicial authorities are useful to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment has been disseminated to the Social Insurance Institution, the Unemployment Appeal Board and the Insurance Court, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.   3. In relation to the violation concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings, see Vilho Eskelinen and others v Finland (63235/00).   4. The summary of the judgement has been published on the Government’s website on national legislation and case law (www.finlex.fi) in Finnish. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs also gave a press release on the case the same day the judgement was issued.   Conclusions of the Government   The measures adopted are capable of preventing similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] En anglais uniquement