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 } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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 } .s95444FF0 { width:29.84pt; display:inline-block } .sC3C3BCB8 { width:27.07pt; display:inline-block } .sE23107D { width:24.29pt; display:inline-block } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)122 Deux affaires contre République tchèque Exécution des arrêts 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)   (Družstevní Záložna Pria et autres, Requête n o 72034/01, arrêt du 31/07/2008, définitif le 26/01/2009 et arrêt du 21/01/2010, définitif le 28/06/ 2010 Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo et autres, Requête n o 74152/01, arrêt du 09/12/2010, définitif le 09/03/2011, et arrêt du 19/01/2012, définitif le 19/04/2012)     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 les arrêts définitifs qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus 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 fournis 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)329 )   ;   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. Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in cases nos in cases No. 72034/01 – Družstevní záložna PRIA v. the Czech Republic and No. 74152/01 – Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo, v. the Czech Republic Action Report submitted in its consolidated version by the Czech Government on 14 March 2013   (Anglais seulement)   In the case of Družstevní záložna PRIA, the Court, in its judgment on the merits of 31 July 2008 which became final on 26 January 2009, found procedural violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in connection with the placement of the applicant credit union in receivership, while it reserved the question of just satisfaction for later decision. On 21 January 2010, the Court pronounced a judgment on just satisfaction whereby it made an award for costs and expenses and rejected the remainder of the claims. The second judgment became final on 28 June 2010.   In the case of Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits on 9 December 2010 which became final on 9 March 2011, and its judgment on just satisfaction on 19 January 2012 which became final on 19 April 2012. The outcome of the case was similar to that in Družstevní záložna PRIA.   The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers of individual and general measures of execution of the judgments.   I.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   The government understands that the above judgments do not require them to introduce any other individual measures beside payment to the applicant credit unions of just satisfaction awarded by the Court as reimbursement of costs and expenses. This is supplemented by the fact that the Court did not find any damage which would have emerged in causal connection with the established violations.   Still, the government should add that Družstevní záložna PRIA conducted proceedings before the Prague 1 District Court on damages allegedly amounting to CZK 1,220,000,000. The applicant decided to withdraw the lawsuit due to its inability to submit evidence and lack of financial resources. Consequently, the district court discontinued the proceedings by its decision of 26 October 2010, which, in this point, became final. The applicant has therefore voluntarily decided not to pursue one of the domestic avenues available to it in order to claim possible damages.   Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo, has been free to put forward its claims at the domestic level, in particular in the proceedings on damages, and thus to follow the way taken in the past by the applicant in the other case mentioned in this report. Still, the government is not aware that the applicant would have initiated such steps.   II.   GENERAL MEASURES   A) AS TO THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION   As of 1 January 2003, following the repulsion of Part V of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Constitutional Court and the enactment of a new Code of Administrative Court Procedure, the administrative courts have been entitled to review administrative acts in full jurisdiction and therefore no further general measure appears necessary. The government is of the opinion that after the said changes concerning administrative justice, there is no major risk of repetition of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention similar to that identified by the Court in its judgments on the merits.   B) AS TO THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION   (i) Identification of problematic issues   The government recalls that problems identified by the Court in its judgments on the merits under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were fundamentally as follows:   After the imposition of receivership, the applicant credit unions were prevented from access to their essential business and accounting documents, which were in sole disposition of the receiver, and thus prevented from effectively challenging information concerning their economic situation or imposition of receivership respectively.   After the amendment of the Credit Unions Act by Act No. 280/2004, the applicant credit unions completely lost the opportunity to challenge the decision on placement in receivership as its supervisory board ceased to be entitled to lodge the particular procedural motion.   (ii) Evaluation of passed changes of law   The government is convinced that, since the time of this assessment, these identified problems have been remedied due to significant legislative amendments and case law evolution.   First of all, Act No. 57/2006, effective as from 1 April 2006, amended the Credit Unions Act and, inter alia , removed sections concerning receivership. As a result, a placement of a credit union in receivership is no longer possible under any circumstances. It follows that at present, there is objectively no risk of a new violation of rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 caused by a situation when a credit union would be placed in receivership. Therefore, the government believes that this crucial change of legislation alone has been sufficient and no further systemic measures to prevent future violations of similar kind of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are required.   (iii) Related legal regulation   The government would further note that the possibility of placement into receivership still exist for subjects active on the financial market other than credit unions, such as banks, investment companies (investiční společnosti), investment funds (investiční fondy), insurance companies (pojišťovny), etc. The nature of these subjects is fundamentally different from credit unions in many aspects and so the government is of the opinion that the assessment of their position falls outside the scope of execution of the judgment of 31 July 2008. Still, the government would point to the features and recent developments of legal regulation concerning these entities in order to illustrate the complex approach of the national authorities to the issues identified by the Court.   In relation to the question of procedural entitlement to lodge a remedy, Act No. 126/2002, effective as from 1   May 2002, amended the Banks Act so that it explicitly inserted a rule that statutory bodies are no longer restricted from lodging appeals against imposition of receivership, which is an exception from the standard rule that statutory bodies’ authority is suspended following placement of a subject in receivership. Similar provisions providing for continuity of the right to lodge appeals against receivership are included in legislation regulating other subjects on the financial market, e.g. Article 109 § 5 of Act No. 189/2004 [Collective Investment Act], Article 139 § 5 letter a) of Act No. 256/2004 [Enterprise on Capital Market Act], or Article   30   § 5 letter a) of Act No. 363/1999 [Insurance Act], later Article 99 § 4 letter a) of Act No. 277/2009 [new Insurance Act]. This legislative regulation also reflects the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 October 2004 No. 5 A 131/2001-69, which reinterpreted the former law concerning credit unions in the sense that a supervisory board is entitled to lodge an appeal during receivership.   Concerning the question of right to access to documentation, the government notes that at present this right can be inferred from general principles of Administrative Code [Act No. 500/2004]. Moreover, in case a certain administrative decision is based on such a documentation, the documentation then becomes part of the particular administrative proceedings file and subsequently, the access to the documents in the file is explicitly provided for by Article 17 in connection with Article 38 § 1 and 2 of the Administrative Code [for any person who is party to the proceedings or has legal interest on the proceedings].   (iv) Publication of the judgments of the Court   Finally, the government notes that the Court’s judgments have been translated and disseminated in accordance with the established practice, in particular to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Czech National Bank and the Ministry of Finance.   III.   CONCLUSION   The Government of the Czech Republic concludes that all the necessary measures to execute the judgments have been taken.