CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 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 } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sD7CE228C { width:27.11pt; display:inline-block } .s6A2A93E6 { width:97.82%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sC325BC0D { width:24.64%; 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s6A7CB232 { width:11.76%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s519C9726 { width:25%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-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 } .s5CDE5C40 { width:22.06%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-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 } .s8625840A { width:16.54%; 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 } .s1CE863A0 { width:24.64%; 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 } .s5B4A1195 { width:11.76%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC9765820 { width:25%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD19D985C { width:22.06%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s875EEDCA { width:16.54%; 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 } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50014358 { width:26.56pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; 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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)184 [1] Dimitras and others and Dimitras and others No. 2 against Greece Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   (Applications Nos. 42837/06, 3237/07, 3269/07, 35793/07, 6099/08 and 34207/08, 6365/09, judgments of 3   June 2010 and of 3 November 2011, final on 3 September 2010 and on 3 February 2012)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern unjustified interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion (violation of article 9) and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent State paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments, in conditions not contested by them (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of   - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and - general measures preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent State (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)184 Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Dimitras and others and Dimitras and others No. 2 against Greece   Introductory case summary   The cases concern the unjustified interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion due to the fact that on a number of occasions in 2006 and 2007, when taking an oath at criminal court hearings as witnesses, complainants or suspects, they had been obliged to reveal their religious convictions, in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration (instead of a religious oath). The Court noted that national legislation required individuals to give details of their religious beliefs if they did not want to be presumed as Orthodox Christians (violation of Article 9). The cases also concern lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a)   Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Dimitras and others   15   000 EUR   15   000 EUR Paid on 08/12/2010 Dimitras and others No. 2     1   500 EUR 1   500 EUR Paid on 02/05/2012   The just satisfaction has been paid in conditions apparently not contested by the applicants.   b)   Individual measures The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non pecuniary damage only in the Dimitras and others case. The Court did not award any just satisfaction in the case of Dimitras and others No. 2. No other individual measure apart from the payment of just satisfaction was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers in the particular circumstances of the case.   II.   General measures   1) Violation of Article 9 The European Court’s judgment, translated into Greek, was widely disseminated to all competent judicial authorities and it was also published on the website of the Legal Council of the State ( www.nsk.gov.gr ). The authorities indicate that under a recent legislative amendment (introduced by Law No 4055/2012) it has been ensured that in the context of criminal proceedings one is not obliged to disclose his religious beliefs: Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure now stipulates that a witness appearing before a criminal court can, at his discretion and without other formalities, choose between taking a religious oath and making a solemn declaration. This measure has already been found to be in compliance with the Convention requirements, with reference to procedure of oath taking before civil courts (see paragraph 87 of the Dimitras and others judgment, paragraph 32 of Dimitras and others No. 2 judgment).   2) Violation of Article 13 The authorities indicate that since the abovementioned legislative amendments fully remedy the substantive violation found by the Court (of Article 9), violation of Article 13 has been absorbed by the general obligation imposed. It was therefore considered that no separate measures were necessary to prevent similar violations of Article 13.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no other individual measure apart from the payment of just satisfaction is considered necessary in these cases, that the measures taken will prevent similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.