CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 29 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s145A6E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sDC725B32 { width:4.32pt; 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 } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sDA01374B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:216pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:10pt } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)91 Lakićević et autres contre   Monténégro et Serbie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requêtes n o 27458/06, 37207/06, 37205/06, et 33604/07 arrêt du 13/12/2011, définitif le 13/03/2012)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 29 mai 2013, lors de la 1171e 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 à l’égard du Monténégro [1]   ;   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)106 )   ;   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 Lakićević and others v. Montenegro and Serbia Applications No. 27458/06, 37207/06, 37205/06, 33604/07   judgment of 13 December 2011, final on 13 March 2012 (Anglais seulement)   I   CASE DESCRIPTION   This case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property on account of the fact that their pensions were suspended because they reopened their legal practices on a part-time basis (violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1).   II   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   The European Court awarded the applicants the just satisfaction in respect of both pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained. The applicants claimed sums in respect of pecuniary damage on account of suspended pensions or pensions reimbursed to the Pension Fund. However, the European Court did not award them the full amounts claimed “because reasonable and commensurate reduction in their entitlement could have been compatible with their Convention rights” (§ 80).   The amendments introduced to the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Official Gazette of Montenegro No.   79/08) in 2008, made it possible for the applicants to receive their pensions regularly and in full amounts and to continue working as attorneys at the same time on a part-time basis. The payment of pensions has been therefore resumed in respect of all the applicants from January 2009.   The applicants thus now enjoy a wider scope of rights than afforded by the European Court in this judgment. It is recalled that the European Court stated that the reasonable and commensurate reduction of the applicants’ pensions rather than the total suspension of their pension entitlements under the circumstances could be considered justified (see §§ 72 and 80).   In view of these facts, no other individual measure is required.   III   GENERAL MEASURES   Legislative measures   The violation found in this case stems from the inadequate legal provisions, in particular from Section 112 paragraph 1 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro No.   54/03). Section 112 paragraph 1 of this law provided that a person’s pension shall be suspended should he or she resume working or establish a private practice, for as long as this activity continues (§23).   As indicated by the European Court, the foregoing provision was repealed in 2008 when the amendments were introduced to the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Official Gazette of Montenegro 79/08) (see §26).   Pursuant to the applicable legislation currently in force (Article 6 § 1 of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance) once pension entitlements had been acquired they could not be repealed or restricted by subsequent measures, in particular on the basis of resumed professional activities. This means that any similar violation is prevented.   In line with the legislation mentioned above, attorneys-at-law who acquired pension entitlements and continue working part-time receive full amount of their pensions. The current legislation therefore grants to these individuals wider rights than those afforded by the European Court of Human Rights in this case. The European Court stated, in particular, that the reasonable and commensurate reduction of the applicants’ pensions rather than the total suspension of their entitlements or affording them a transitional period to adjust themselves to the new scheme could be justified (see §§ 72 and 80).   Change of the administrative practice and court case law   Following to the amendments to the Pension and Disability Insurance Act introduced in 2008, the administrative practice of the relevant authorities, in particular the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund, as the first instance body, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, as the second instance body, in administrative proceedings concerning the pension entitlements, as well as the case law of Montenegrin courts has changed. Their decisions are now fully in compliance with the amended Pension and Disability Insurance Act, which now allows receiving of the full amount of pensions and simultaneous working part-time as an attorney-at-law in private practice.   Publication and dissemination   The European Court’s judgment was translated and published in the Official Gazette of Montenegro No.   17/2012 on 27 March 2012 and on the website of the Supreme Court of Montenegro.   IV   JUST SATISFACTION   The amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as well as for the costs and expenses have been paid within the deadline set by the European Court.   V   CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT STATE   In view of the above facts, the Government of Montenegro considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Montenegro has thus complied with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. It is therefore proposed to the Committee of Ministers to adopt a final resolution closing the supervision of execution of this case.         Representative of Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights Zoran Pažin         [1] Affaire contre la Serbie et le Monténégro mais la Cour européenne a jugé irrecevable les griefs à l’encontre de la Serbie.