CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 20 novembre 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 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)225 Gluhaković contre Croatie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 21188/09 GLUHAKOVIĆ 12/04/2011 12/07/2011   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 20 novembre 2013 lors de la 1185e (Budget) 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 transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire 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, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2011)955 )   ;   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 ( Anglais uniquement ) Case Gluhakovic v. Croatia Application No. 21188/09, Judgment of 12/04/2011, final on 12/07/2011 English only   In the above-mentioned judgment, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the failure of national authorities to secure effective contact between the applicant and his daughter, with whom he does not live. The Court expressly ordered the State to secure effective contact, “on the basis of the judgment by the Rijeka Municipal Court of 8 March 2010”.   1.   Individual measures   Firstly, the government points out that, acting on the applicant’s request to change the previous decision on contact between him and his daughter, Rijeka Municipal Court rendered a decision on 8   March 2010. Therefore, there has been an obvious mistake ( lapsus calami ) both in §§ 32-35 of the judgment, as well as in the operative provisions. Thus, the obligation of the State relates to ensuring compliance with the decision of 8   March 2010.   During the procedure before the ECtHR, as well as after the judgment was rendered, the Rijeka Social Welfare Centre worked intensively in securing contacts between the applicant and his daughter. In order to ensure the necessary assistance (especially in overcoming trust issues between the applicant and his ex ‑ wife), as well as monitor the realisation of contacts between the applicant and his daughter, the Rijeka Social Welfare Centre ordered the measure of monitoring the exercise of parental rights for both the applicant and his ex-wife.   Significant progress has been made in the application of the mentioned measure. Improved communication between the applicant and his ex-wife now allows for contact between the applicant and his daughter to be held in accordance with the applicant’s work schedule (with respect to the child’s school schedule). Therefore, contact between the applicant and his daughter is not held on specific days of the week, but varies depending on the applicant’s work obligations and his daughter’s school schedule. It should be noted that the applicant and his daughter see each other once to twice a week.   Often, after the “official” contact has ended, the applicant calls the child and briefly meets her on the same day in order to give her a present he had bought for her.   It should be pointed out that both the applicant and his ex-wife are constantly in contact with the person in charge of carrying out the supervision on the exercise of parental rights, and neither of them has had any objections to the way that contact between the applicant and his daughter are conducted.   Therefore, the government deems that the urgent individual measure has been fully implemented.   2.   General measures   The judgment has been translated into Croatian language, and, along with the legal analysis, disseminated to all relevant authorities – the Constitutional Court of RoC, the Supreme Court, the County Court in Rijeka, the Municipal Court in Riijeka, the Social Welfare Centre in Rijeka, the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, and the Ministry of Family, Veterans’ Affairs and Intergenerational Solidarity.   Croatian translation of the judgment was published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice (www.mprh.hr).   The government deems that the issue identified in this case as the violation of Article 8 of the Convention is an individual violation. No other similar judgments have been rendered against Croatia regarding this issue, and no other applications with similar allegations have been communicated to Croatia by the ECtHR.   Therefore, no other general measures are required in order to ensure compliance with the judgment, as prescribed by Article 46 of the Convention.   3.   Just satisfaction   Just satisfaction was paid to the applicant on 12 September 2011, and payment information was delivered to the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR on 19 September 2011.