CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 19 juin 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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sEC65D5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2380EAE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s3F9BA698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s95444FF0 { width:29.84pt; display:inline-block } .sC3C3BCB8 { width:27.07pt; display:inline-block } .sE23107D { width:24.29pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)121 Pekárny a cukrárny klatovy, a.s contre République tchèque Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 19 juin 2013, lors de la 1174e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)   (Requête n o 12266/07, arrêt du 12 janvier 2012, définitif le 12 avril 2012)     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 y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)48 )   ;   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. Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in cases Nos. 12266/07, 40059/07, 36038/09, 47155/09 – Pekárny a cukrárny Klatovy, a.s. v. the Czech Republic Action report submitted by the Czech Government on 3 December 2012 (Anglais seulement)     In its judgment of 12 January 2012, which became final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 b) of the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights held by a majority that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in two of the above cases on account of the failure by the appellate courts to decide on the merits of the Applicant’s appeals against interim measures prohibiting the latter to organise its general meetings. The Court held that the Applicant’s access to court had effectively been hindered when courts dismissed, in 2009, its appeals as non-substantiated due to the past date of the general meetings in question and alleged ineffectiveness of the related interim measures, ordered earlier in 2009, and thus prevented the applicant from having its civil claim heard in court. The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers of individual and general measures of execution of the judgment. [1]   I.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   The Court found no causal connection between the violation and damage alleged by the Applicant. It held that the statement of violation sufficed as a just satisfaction for any potential non-pecuniary damage. The government therefore considers that the Court’s judgment does not require introduction of individual measures other than reimbursement to the applicant of costs and expenses as awarded by the Court. To reopen the proceedings before domestic courts, for instance, appears to bring little effect at this point, given the object of interim measures challenged by the applicant.   II.   GENERAL MEASURES   The government notes that in the Court’s opinion, the interim measures ordered against the applicant did not, per se, constitute a violation of the Convention and that the applicant’s right of access to court had been respected by the appellate court in two other instances in 2007 under the same law. The government further notes that on 29 October 2012, the Court struck out the applicant’s other applications in principally identical matters, following the government’s unilateral declaration of 6 June 2012 which acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s rights to the extent of the above judgment.   The government considers that no systemic changes are needed and the Court’s legal opinion can be accommodated within the existing legislative framework, by means of an extended interpretation by ordinary courts of the notion of “non-substantiated [appeal]” as provided for in jurisprudence (e.g. Supreme Court, 29   Odo 611/2002, dated 30 September 2004) in respect of the admissibility criterion pursuant to article   218   c) of the Civil Procedure Rules (Act No. 99/1963 Coll.). The Court’s judgment has been forwarded to and consulted with the judges of the appellate courts concerned as well as the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, and discussed at the joint meeting of the High Courts, on 28 and 29 June 2012, which are competent under the Czech law to hear appeals in disputes concerning corporations, with a view to aligning future case law with the judgment. In addition, judges of the civil sections of all regional courts, which are competent to hear appeals against interim measures ordered in any civil proceedings, have acquainted themselves with the judgment, in order to ensure that the Court’s opinion be respected also in other than corporate proceedings where a similar situation may occur in respect of passing of deadlines or events concerned by the interim measures.   III.   CONCLUSION   The Government of the Czech Republic concludes that all the necessary measures to execute the judgment have been taken.   [1] The issue of payment of just satisfaction is dealt with separately.