CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 juin 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8EE18E3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sF480646D { width:17.92pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s682A13C7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s919E91DC { width:32.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEE0AE680 { margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:left; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s6CA3F3E5 { width:25.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s5038DA2B { width:27.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB10A4219 { width:22.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3C5592E5 { width:19.89pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9096A603 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)99 Deux affaires contre Bulgarie (Kamburov et Stanchev) Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n° 31001/02, arrêt du 23/04/2009, définitif le 23/07/2009 Requête n° 8682/02, arrêt du 01/10/2009, définitif le et 01/01/2010)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2013, lors de la 1172e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     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 que le Comité 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 la violation constatée   ;   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 à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   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)524 ) [1]   ;   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 -                       KAMBUROV V. BULGARIA (No. 2) - Application No. 31001 / 02, -                       Judgment of 23.04.2009/final on 23.07.2009 and -                       STANCHEV V. BULGARIA - Application No. 8682 / 02, Judgment of 01.10.2009/final on 01.01.2010                      The Facts: 1)                    The Facts under KAMBUROV V. BULGARIA (No. 2) -                       The applicant – Mr. Zahari Bechev Kamburov is a Bulgarian citizen living in Dimitrovgrad (town in Bulgaria). In 2002 the applicant had been convicted by the competent District Court to administrative detention of five days for a minor disturbance of the public order as per the acting Decree 904/1963 on Fight against Minor Disturbance. -                         2)                    The Facts under STANCHEV V. BULGARIA -                       The applicant – Mr. Angel Petkov Stanchev is a Bulgarian citizen living in Pazardjik (town in Bulgaria). In 2002 the applicant had been convicted by the competent District Court to administrative detention of five days for a minor disturbance of the public order as per the acting Decree 904/1963 on Fight against Minor Disturbance. -                         -                       Both applicants alleged breaches of Article   2 of Protocol №   7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) due to impossibility to appeal to a higher court a judgment imposing a sanction of detention for a minor disturbance of the public order. In both cases the European Court found violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the ECHR . -                         -                       The European Court awarded to each applicant the amount of EUR 1,000 (one thousand euro) plus the imposed VAT as a just satisfaction. The European Court awarded to Mr. Stanchev also the amount of EUR 1,200 (one thousand and two hundred euro) for refund of court expenses. Such expenses were not awarded to Mr. Kamburov as he did not claim their refund. -                                         Individual Measures: 1)                    All sums awarded by the European Court were transferred to applicants’ bank accounts; 2)                    No other individual measures seem to be appropriate in these cases.   -                                       General Measures: 1) Translation and Publication of the European Court’s Judgments Translation in Bulgarian language and publication of both judgments is available on the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Bulgaria official website: http://www.justice.government.bg . -                         2) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR   In both cases the European Court considered violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR due to the impossibility for the applicants to appeal to a higher court their judgments imposing a sanction of detention for a minor disturbance of the public order. In order to implement the European Court’s judgments, the Bulgarian Government initiated legislative amendments concerning the relevant provisions of the Decree 904/1963 on Fight against Minor Disturbance. With Decision No. 3/17.05.2011 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria, the provision of Article 7, sentence 1 of the above-mentioned Decree was pronounced partially unconstitutional in the part announcing that the District Court judgment could not be appealed to a higher court. On 25.11.2011, the Decree 904/1963 on Fight against Minor Disturbance was amended and presently article 7 envisages legal possibility a District Court judgment imposing a sanction of detention for a minor disturbance of the public order to be appealed to a higher court instance. The Bulgarian Government believes that the adopted legislative amendments to Decree 904/1963 on Fight against Minor Disturbance will prevent future similar violations of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. On the grounds of this, the Bulgarian Government proposes to the Committee of Ministers to close the supervision of the execution of the above judgments.   [1] En anglais uniquement.