CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 7 mai 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 } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9999C01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s813E52F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sC43FB860 { width:27.12pt; display:inline-block } .s27483D04 { width:24.33pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sA6C90495 { width:28.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)86 Michalak contre République slovaque Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 30157/03, arrêt du 8 février 2011, définitif le 8 mai 2011)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 7 mai 2013, lors de la 1170e 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 l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire 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 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(2013)298E)   ;   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   Application No.30157/03 Michalak v. Slovak Republic judgment of 08/02/2011, final on 08/05/2011 (Anglais seulement)   Introductory case summary   This case concerns a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective procedure by which the lawfulness of the applicant’s remand in custody could be decided; a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant’s remand in custody and of his detention; and a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention on account of the lack of an enforceable right to compensation in relation to the violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention found. All of the relevant events took place between 2002 and 2004.   The case also concerns a violation of Article 13, in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the lack of an effective remedy in 2005 in respect of the monitoring of the applicant’s telephone communications which took place prior to 2004.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a.   Just satisfaction   Case Application No. Date of judgment Just satisfaction (EUR) Paid on Michalak 30157/03 08/02/2011 10   000 23/06/2011   b.   Individual measures   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8 000 for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant has received the sum awarded by the Court and was already released from detention on remand.   The Court noted that the procedural dimension of the monitoring of the applicant’s telephone communications had to be distinguished from the protection of his private life and correspondence available to him under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. It concluded that although the applicant could arguably seek redress in the criminal courts in respect of potential infringements of his right to a fair trial, this had no direct connection with the applicant’s rights protected independently under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court did not call into question the monitoring of the conversations in the context of the criminal trial. However, should the applicant now wish to seek the destruction of the records of his monitored telephone conversations, it would now be open to him to lodge a constitutional complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (see below under General measures).   No other individual measures seem to be necessary.   II.   General measures   a.   With respect to the violation of Articles 5 § 4 and 5 § 5 of the Convention   With respect to the first violation of Article 5 § 4 (lack of an effective procedure by which the lawfulness of the applicant’s remand in custody could be decided), this case resembles 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 (lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant’s remand in custody and of his detention) this case resembles 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.   Regarding violation of Article 5 § 5, the case resembles 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.   b.   With respect to the violation of Article 13, in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention   Since 2005, when the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint regarding the monitoring of his telephone calls, there has been a change in practice at the Constitutional Court such that it now examines such complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution.   Indeed, in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the judgment, the European Court noted that in cases No. I. US 774/05 (on 14 July 2006), I. US 117/07 (on 4 February 2009), and Ill. US 80/08 (27 May 2008), the Constitutional Court had found a violation of the complainants’ rights and freedoms under Article 22 of the Constitution and under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention on account of the monitoring of their telephone communications and had awarded them compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Thus, the law of the Slovak Republic and the relevant judicial practice now provide an effective remedy with regard to complaints about the monitoring of private communications in accordance with Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.   This case does not require the adoption of any further general measures other than publication and dissemination.   c.   Publication and dissemination   The judgment in the case was published in Justičná Revue No. 6-7/2011. By letter from the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 28 October 2011, the judgment was 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 letter of the same date, it was also distributed to Presidents of all regional courts with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of regional and district courts.   The judgment was given attention during the meeting of the Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights with judges and 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. The judgment was also part of a case study presented by the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic within the cyclic education of judges and prosecutors a serial of regional events, which was held in 2012 under the title “Newest case law of ECHR and its impacts on the decision-making practice of domestic courts”. All events were organised in particular for civil and separately for criminal judges and prosecutors. In total, 12 one day events were held (31 January 2012 in Pezinok, 6 February 2012 in Banská Bystica, 7   February 2012 in Banská Bystrica, 8 March 2012 in Pezinok, 15 March 2012 in Kosice, 16 March 2012 in Kosice, 13 September 2012 in Kosice, 1   October 2012 in Banská Bystrica, 2 October 2012 in Banská Bystrica, 18 October 2012 in Kosice, 25 October 2012 in Pezinok. 6 November 2012 in Pezinok).   As for the education of prosecutors, on 7 to 9 October 2012, a seminar under the title of “Protection of Human Rights during preliminary proceedings” devoted to prosecutors, was held. Lecturers were besides representatives of Slovak and Czech prosecution also judges of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights and agent of the governmental delegate for representation of the Czech Republic before the European Court of Human Rights. The participants were among others informed about the contents of the ECHR judgments (including the present case) and particular attention was devoted to the rights of the aggrieved in criminal proceedings. All contributions were published in the Information reporter special of the General Prosecution of the Slovak Republic, which was distributed to all prosecutions.   Ill.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.   In Bratislava, 28 February 2013   Marica Pirošíková Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights