CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 5 décembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA54E3CC5 { font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s47BB67E2 { font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s6CA3F3E5 { width:25.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2E49B105 { background-color:#ffffff } .s74384AE5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt } .sC41F0EA6 { font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .sB10A4219 { width:22.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3C5592E5 { width:19.89pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8169B733 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:71.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sC6863EDC { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)238 Kehaya et autres contre Bulgarie Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 47797/99+ KEHAYA ET AUTRES 12/01/2006 14/06/2007 12/04/2006 14/09/2007   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 5 décembre 2013, lors de la 1186e 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 transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire et les violations constatées   ;   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)1183 [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 cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.   ACTION REPORT KEHAYA AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria (anglais uniquement)   Application No. 47797/99 Judgment of 12/01/2006 Final on 12/04/2006 Judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007 (Article 41)                      Case description and Convention violations found   The case concerns the failure by the Bulgarian courts to respect the final character of a judgment of 1996, ordering the restitution of certain plots of land to the applicants (violation of Article 6, § 1).   In 2000, following proceedings brought by the local Forest Authority, the Supreme Court of Cassation reconsidered the issue of restitution, determined by a judicial decision in 1996 in proceedings in which the applicants had appealed against a refusal of the Agricultural Land Commission to grant restitution of certain plots of land . The Supreme Court of Cassation found that the decision of 1996 did not have res judicata effects in respect of the Forest Authority, as this decision was delivered in proceedings which were administrative by their nature, with the participation of the Agricultural Land Commission.   The case also concerns a breach to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants’ property, as the Supreme Court of Cassation’s decision of 2000 had the effect of depriving them of their possession, in violation of the principle of legal certainty. Furthermore, one of the applicants was fined in 1997 for having used the land which belonged to him according to the decision of 1996 (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).                   Individual measures   As concerns the question of just satisfaction, the Court found that the respondent State should either return to the applicants the ownership and possession of the plots of land at issue or pay the applicants within the same deadlines certain sums corresponding to the value of the property. The Bulgarian authorities did not return the land at issue to the applicants, but instead paid the amounts awarded by the European Court as compensation for pecuniary damage in case of non-restitution, as well amounts awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damages and for costs and expenses, into bank accounts specially opened for that purpose in the name of the applicants. No further individual measures are required.                 General measures   -           Legislative measures and changes in case-law   According to Article 302 of the new Code of Civil Procedure (in force as of 01.03.2008), a final judgment by an administrative court shall be binding upon the civil court regarding the lawfulness and the validity of an administrative act. Moreover, according to Article 177 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, a judgment by which an administrative court has quashed or amended an administrative act is res judicata with regard to all persons (erga omnes).   The civil court is thus no more competent to perform the verification (indirect judicial review of the civil court over administrative acts) which it was obliged to carry out under the Interpretative Decision № 6 of 05.10.2006 of the Supreme Court of Cassation and under the provisions of the old Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, it follows that the old practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation is no longer applicable. This has been confirmed by an interpretative decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation adopted on 14/01/2013. According to this interpretative decision, the State is bound by the res judicata effect of judgments delivered in proceedings concerning the lawfulness of administrative acts adopted under the Use and Property on Agricultural Land Act and the Restitution of Forests and Lands from the Forest Fund Act.   The Supreme Court of Cassation considered that the State can contest the validity of an administrative act taken under one of these two Acts in civil proceedings only if this administrative act had not been reviewed by the courts.     -           Publication and dissemination   The judgment was published on the web site of the Ministry of Justice and sent to the competent authorities.   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.   [1] Anglais uniquement.