CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 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 } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)121 Pekárny a cukrárny klatovy, a.s against Czech Republic Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 June 2013 at the 1174th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   (Application No. 12266/07, judgment of 12 January 2012, final on 12 April 2012)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established;   Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)48);   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. 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   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.