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 } .s8EE18E3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s3AF0A5A1 { width:33.22pt; 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 } .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 } .sCD9B76F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s65811E34 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)95 Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, A.S. contre la République slovaque Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 41262/05, arrêt du 26 juillet 2011, définitif le 26 octobre 2011)   (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   ;   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 et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (voir document DH-DD(2013)112 )   ;   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. 41262/05 Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia,a.s. v. Slovak Republic judgment of 26/06/2011, final on 26/10/2011 (Anglais seulement)   Introductory case summary   This case concerns the violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. In its judgment the Court considered that it was crucial that the domestic courts make a careful assessment of the presence and level of public interest in the publishing of the impugned information in the present case as well as strike a balance between any such public interest and the individual interests of those concerned since, as a matter of principle, domestic courts are better equipped to establish the facts relevant to the ensuing legal analysis. This also applies to the issue of the bona fides of the applicant company’s legal predecessor and other aspects of the case that are necessary for establishing whether the applicant company’s legal predecessor had acted in accordance with the “duties and responsibilities” inherent in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. The Court considered that by failing to examine these elements of the case, the domestic courts cannot be said to have “applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article   10” and to have “based themselves on an   acceptable assessment of the relevant facts”. The foregoing considerations were sufficient to enable the Court to   conclude that the legal protection received by the applicant company’s legal predecessor at the domestic level was not compatible with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention.   The applicant’s complaint concerning the violation of Article 6 § 1 was dismissed by the Court.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   1) Just satisfaction   As the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that there is no call to award him any sum on that account (§ 121 of the judgment).   2) Individual measures   The applicant requested a reopening of the proceedings according Article 228 § 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The request was granted on 9 November 2011. The proceedings (registered under new file number 7C 251/2011) are pending.   In conclusion, no other individual measures appear necessary.   II.   General measures   Publication and dissemination   The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue ( Justičná Revue ) No. 2/2012. The judgment has been sent by a   letter of the Minister of Justice of 19 March 2012 to the presidents of the regional courts with a   request to acquaint all regional and district court presidents with the judgment who then acquaint all district court judges with that judgment.   In conclusion, no other general measures appear necessary.   III.   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, 6 February 2013   Marica Pirošíková Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Righ