CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 30 avril 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)63 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Khristov against Ukraine   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 24465/04 KHRISTOV 19/02/2009 05/06/2009   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 April 2014 at the 1198th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     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 judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the infringement of the principle of legal certainty as well as of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions on account of the quashing of a final and enforceable judgment in an administrative case by way of extraordinary review (violations of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix);   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:   - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent State (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)63 Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Khristov against Ukraine   Introductory case summary   The case concerns the quashing, in 2002, of a final judgment in an administrative case against the applicant by way of extraordinary review (“protest”). The Court observed that, under the Code on Administrative Offences in force at the time, court judgments imposing an administrative sanction could not be appealed against under the ordinary appeal and cassation appeal procedures. Instead, the extraordinary review procedure could be initiated either on a prosecutor’s motion or on a motion of the president of a higher court. The Court found that the extraordinary review of final and binding judgments, which was neither directly accessible to parties, subject to any time-limit nor justified by substantial and compelling circumstances, was not compatible with the principle of legal certainty which is one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   The Court also found a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as a result of the extraordinary review of the final judgment. The Court held that the interference complained of was not justified because the “fair balance” was upset and the applicant bore an individual and excessive burden (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 2 000 EUR - 2 000 EUR Paid on 09/09/2009   The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non–pecuniary damage and rejected as unsubstantiated the various claims in respect of pecuniary damage.   The just satisfaction was paid in conditions apparently accepted by the applicant’s heirs. The applicant had passed away in August 2006 (see § 2 of the judgment), so that it was paid on an escrow account until the inheritance rights of the applicant’s heirs were resolved: the amount was eventually transferred to the heirs’ account on 1 April 2011.   b) Individual measures   Having regard to the above, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.   II.   General measures   On 24 September 2008 the Code of Administrative Offences was amended so that it now provides for an ordinary appeal procedure for challenging decisions given by first-instance courts in administrative cases (see § 22 of the judgment), instead of the extraordinary review procedure (“protest”). In this context, it is also recalled that, following the abolishing of the “protest” procedure in respect of criminal and civil proceedings, the Committee of Ministers decided to close the examination of the Court’s judgments in other similar cases (cases of Agrotehservis and others, Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)313 (civil) and Savinskiy case, Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)312 (criminal)).   The judgment was translated into Ukrainian and placed on the website of the Ministry of Justice, as well as published in the official government bulletin, the Official Herald of Ukraine [Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy], No.   68/2009.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Ukraine has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in the present case.