CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 5 décembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBE30FE25 { text-align:justify; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s6CA3F3E5 { width:25.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s47BB67E2 { font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sB10A4219 { width:22.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3C5592E5 { width:19.89pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7E6AC2AD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBDA3CBDC { margin-left:32.45pt; padding-left:3.55pt } .s74384AE5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)239 Three cases against Bulgaria Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 72001/01   ATANASOVA 02/10/2008 02/01/2009 23057/03 DINCHEV 22/01/2009 22/04/2009 18527/02 TONCHEV 19/11/2009 19/02/2010   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 December 2013 at the 1186th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)1017 );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. ACTION REPORT GROUP ATANASOVA V. BULGARIA   List of Cases: Atanasova v. Bulgaria, 72001/01, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 02/01/2009 DINCHEV v. Bulgaria, 23057/03, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 22/04/2009 Tonchev v. Bulgaria (II), 18527/02, judgment of 19/11/2009, final on 19/02/2010                    Case description   These cases concern the lack of effective access to court between 1993 and 2003 due to the impossibility for the applicants to obtain decisions on compensation claims submitted in criminal proceedings which were discontinued on the grounds that prosecution had become time-barred (violations of Art. 6§1). The European Court found that the criminal courts had failed to determine finally the applicants’ claims for damages and that this could not be cured by the possibility of bringing fresh claims in the civil courts many years after the events.   The cases of Atanasova and Tonchev (II) concern also the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of Art. 6 § 1).                   Individual measures   The proceedings have been terminated. The authorities have paid the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants by the European Court. The applicants did not address the Prosecutor General in order to ask him to file a request for reopening of the criminal proceedings with the Supreme Court of Cassation. Nor did they bring their claims in the civil courts, as they could have done in order to prevent these claims to become time-barred. Their civil claims are now time-barred and the time-limit for submitting a request for reopening has expired. No further individual measures seem possible in these cases.                 General measures   As concerns the violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the lack of effective access to court On 4 February 2013, the Supreme Court of Cassation adopted an interpretative decision concerning the examination of civil claims in criminal proceedings which had been terminated due to the expiry of a limitation period, amnesty or death of the accused. The interpretation given by the Supreme Court of Cassation in this decision is binding on the lower courts and on the panels of the Supreme Court of Cassation.   According to the above-mentioned decision, the criminal courts are now required to continue the examination of a civil claim brought in criminal proceedings, even if the proceedings are terminated due to the expiry of a limitation period, amnesty or death of the accused. The same applies to the examination of civil claims, if the criminal proceedings had been terminated by the second or third instance courts. The Supreme Court of Cassation based its decision, inter alia , on the European Court’s judgments examined in this group.   As the Supreme Court of Cassation gave a clear indication that civil claim in criminal proceedings which had been terminated due to the expiry of a limitation period should be determined by the criminal court before which this claim had been brought, no further general measures are necessary to prevent similar violations in the future.   As concerns the violation of Article 6 § 1 due to excessive length of criminal proceedings   These questions are currently examined in the Kitov group of cases.   IV.   Conclusions   In conclusion the government considers that the general measures will prevent new similar violations and that Bulgaria has complied with its obligation under 46 §1 of the Convention. The government therefore looks forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.