CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 21 septembre 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s3CC4D07E { font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .sFC64E1AD { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)283 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Matsyuk against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 September 2017 at the 1294 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 1751/03 MATSYUK 10/12/2009 10/03/2010   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 the information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in the present case (see 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(2017)283   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case Matsyuk against Ukraine     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the domestic courts’ inconsistent interpretation of the procedural legislation between 2002-2003, which deprived the applicant of the possibility to challenge in a clear and practical manner the administrative authorities’ refusal to pay compensation in connection with certain unjustified criminal proceedings (Article 6 § 1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   The Court held that that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. Furthermore, no award was made for costs and expenses.   b) Individual measures   By a letter of 26 March 2010 the applicant was informed about the possibility provided by the legislation in force to apply for the review of the impugned proceedings before the Supreme Court of Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian authorities the applicant did not make use of this remedy.   No other individual measure is therefore necessary in this case.   II.   General measures   The authorities consider that this is an isolated case. In addition, as acknowledged by the European Court, the violation resulted from the domestic courts’ interpretation of the relevant legislation rather than the legislation itself. In particular, the Court established in paragraph   30: “without undertaking to interpret the applicable domestic procedural legislation, which is not its role, that the respective interpretation by the domestic courts lacked consistency (given the misleading instruction to the applicant of 4 March 2002) and deprived the applicant of the opportunity to challenge, in a clear and practical procedure, the refusal of the administrative authorities to pay compensation in connection with criminal proceedings”.   The judgment has therefore been widely published and disseminated among the courts of all jurisdictions to prevent similar violations from occurring.   A summary of the Court’s judgment in Ukrainian was published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No. 65 of 09 April 2010.   The Court’s conclusions in the judgment Matsyuk v. Ukraine were included into the submission to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as to the execution of the European Court’s judgments.   By letters on 3 August 2012 the explanatory notes as to the Court’s conclusions in the judgment at issue were sent to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the High Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases, the Court of Appeal of Kyiv Region and Bila Tserkva Town-District Court for further dissemination to all courts.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no further individual measures are required, 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 cases.