CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 novembre 2015

.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 } .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 } .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 } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)187 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Hurter against Switzerland   Application Case Judgment of Final on 53146/99 HURTER 15/12/2005 15/03/2006   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 November 2015 at the 1239th 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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been 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 information 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 details in Appendix);   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. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)187 Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Hurter against Switzerland     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing on account of the dismissal of his requests made for public hearings in disciplinary proceedings against him before the Lawyers’ Supervisory Board and the Federal Court in 1998-99 (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 3   000 EUR 3   000 EUR Paid on 05/05/2006   b) Individual measures   Following the Court’s judgment, the applicant submitted a revision request to the Federal Court which was rejected. The applicant subsequently submitted a new application to the European Court (No. 48111/07) which was declared inadmissible on 15 May 2012. In its inadmissibility decision, the European Court noted that it followed clearly from the reasoning of the Federal Court’s judgment that the latter had not been seized with any new element, neither in facts nor in law, which had not been examined and decided upon by the European Court’s judgment of 15 December 2005. The European Court further noted that the present judgment was pending supervision before the Committee of Ministers.   In this context, it is first recalled that the European Court, in its judgment of 15 December 2005, held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage possibly suffered. It is further recalled that the European Court rejected the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages for lack of sufficient causal link, as it could not speculate on the outcome of the proceedings if the violation had not occurred (§§ 41-42 of the judgment).   After a detailed examination of the reasoning of the European Court on the merits and supported by its decision concerning just satisfaction, as well as the specific circumstances of this case, it does not appear that the applicant suffered consequences of the violation found which would not have been compensated for by the award made in respect of just satisfaction. Accordingly, no further individual measures appear necessary.   II.   General measures   The judgment of the Court was sent out to the authorities directly concerned in December 2005. It was also published in Verwaltungspraxis der Bundesbehörden (Digest of Confederal Administrative Case-Law), VPB 70.109, available via < http://www.vpb.admin.ch/deutsch/doc/70/70.109.html >, as well as mentioned in the yearly report of the Federal Council on the activities of Switzerland in the Council of Europe in 2006.   Furthermore, a new federal law regulating the liberty of lawyers when providing their services ( Bundesgesetz über die Freizügigkeit der Rechtsanwälte ) entered into force on 1 July 2002, providing access to a court in all cases of dispute, thus guaranteeing a court hearing.   In view of these measures taken and the direct effect of the Convention in the domestic legal order, no further general measures are necessary.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Switzerland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in the present case.