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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)239 Trois affaires contre Bulgarie Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête n° Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 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   (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 ces affaires 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)1017 [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 ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. ACTION REPORT GROUP ATANASOVA V. BULGARIA (anglais uniquement)   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.   [1] Anglais uniquement.