CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 7 mars 2013

.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 } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB286AABC { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s253C288E { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:justify } .sB220F3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { 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 } .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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-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 } .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 } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-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 } .s62B93296 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:198.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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(2013)47 [1] Aydemir et Michalko contre République slovaque Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 44153/06, arrêt du 8 février 2011, définitif le 8 mai 2011 Requête n o 35377/05, arrêt du 21 décembre 2010, définitif le 21 mars 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 les arrêts définitifs qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et les violations constatées (voir document DH-DD(2013)146E )   ;   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 les arrêts y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)146E )   ;   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 ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. ACTION REPORT [2]   Application No. 35377/05 Aydemir v. Slovakia judgment of 08/02/2011, final on 08/05/2011 and application no. 35377/05 Michalko v. Slovakia judgment of 21/12/2010, final on 21/03/2011   Introductory case summary These cases concern a   violation of the right to liberty and security due to the length of detention on remand, the length and fairness of proceedings on the release from detention on remand and failure of compensation for unlawful detention (violations of Article 5 § 3, 4 and 5).   I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Just satisfaction   Case Application No. Date of judgment Just satisfaction (EUR) Paid on Aydemir 44153/06 08/02/2011 5 500 23/06/2011 Michalko 35377/05 21/12/2010 9 000 26/04/2011   b) Individual measures   In the case Aydemir v. Slovakia the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage (§ 98 of the judgment). In the case Michalko v. Slovakia the Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage (§ 183 of the judgment). The applicants in both cases were already released from detention on remand. No other individual measures seem to be necessary.   II. General measures   a) Legislation   With respect to the first violation of Article 5 § 4 (lack of adequate possibility to challenge the lawfulness of the applicants’ pre-trial detention) cases Aydemir and Michalko resemble the case Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 2) , application no. 34761/03. The supervision of the execution of the judgment in the case Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 2) was closed by the Committee of Ministers’ final resolution no. CM/resDH(2012)53.   Concerning the second violation of Article 5 § 4 (failure to promptly examine the applicants’ request for release from detention on remand) cases Aydemir and Michalko resemble the case Kucera v. Slovakia (application no. 48666/99). The supervision of the execution of the judgment in the case of Kucera v. Slovakia was closed by the Committee of Ministers’ final resolution no. CM/ResDH(2011)158. The same final resolution is applicable also to the violation of Article 5 § 3 in the case of Michalko.   Regarding violation of Article 5 § 5 cases Aydemir and Michalko resemble the case Pavletic v. Slovakia (application no. 39359/98). The supervision of the execution of the judgment in the case of Pavletic v Slovakia was closed by the Committee of Ministers’ final resolution no. CM/ResDH(2011)34.   Therefore, the cases of Aydemir and Michalko do not require adoption of any further general measures other than publication and dissemination.   b) Publication and dissemination   The judgment in the case Aydemir was published in Justičná Revue No. 10/2011 and judgment in the case Michalko was published in Justičná Revue No. 6-7/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 28 October 2011 the judgments were sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all constitutional judges about it, to the General Prosecutor with the request to give notice to all prosecutors about it and to the president of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all judges of that chamber about it. By letters of the same date they were also distributed to presidents of all regional courts with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of regional and district courts. All the judgments were given the attention on the meeting of the Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights with judges and subsequently advisers of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, held on 23 June 2011, which was attended also by Mr Šikuta, the judge of the European Court of Human Rights.     III. Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article   46 § 1 of the Convention.     In Bratislava, 14 February 2013         Marica Pirošíková Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des   Ministres le 7 mars 2013 lors de la 1164e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] En anglais uniquement.