CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 11 septembre 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 26 September 1985 by the heirs of J. Dierckx against Belgium (Application No. 11966/86);        Whereas on 2 May 1990 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;        Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 8 December 1988, the applicants complained of the failure of the Belgian state to execute a judgment of 9 June 1980 ordering it to pay compensation to them and of their inability to compel the state to execute the said judgment;        Whereas in its report adopted on 6 March 1990 the Commission expressed the opinion, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), and, with twelve votes to seven, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 457th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 13 May 1991, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);        Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicants, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 12 September 1991;        Whereas, at the 464th meeting of the Deputies held on 18 October 1991, the Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the Convention, that the Government of Belgium was to pay the applicants as just satisfaction 112 250 Belgian francs for costs and expenses and 1 Belgian franc for non-pecuniary damage, namely a total sum of 112 251 Belgian francs;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of Belgium to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 13 May and 18 October 1991, having regard to Belgium's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by them;        Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (94) 36, adopted at the 514th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 9 June 1994, whereby the Committee of Ministers decided to make public the decision taken at its 457th meeting, as well as the report of the Commission;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Belgium gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 2 April 1992 the Government of Belgium paid the applicant the total sum of 112 251 Belgian francs as just satisfaction,        Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of Belgium and in particular of the fact that the seizure system provided for in article 1412bis of the Act of 30 June 1994 has begun to function, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case.               Appendix to Final Resolution DH (95) 105           Information provided by the Government of Belgium     during the examination of the case of Heirs of J. Dierckx                   by the Committee of Ministers        Since the entry into force in January 1995 of Article 1412bis (Act of 30 June 1994, published in the official journal on 21 July 1994) certain possessions belonging to legal persons set up under public law (for example to the state, regions, communities, provinces, municipalities or organs of public interest) may be seized:        The possessions concerned are the following:        1. possessions which the above-mentioned legal persons have declared capable of seizure.   The modalities for registering these declarations have been fixed by a Royal Decree of 5 April 1995, published in the official journal on 19 May 1995 and having entered into force on the same day.   According to this decree the declarations should in principle be entered in a register or in some other form which permits easy access.   At the time of the adoption of the resolution in the Dierckx case certain registers had already been set up;        2. failing such a declaration, or when the proceeds from the sale of the registered possessions does not suffice to pay the creditor, those possessions which are manifestly not necessary for these legal persons in order for them to fulfil their mission or to assure the continuity of the public service.        The legal persons set up under public law whose possessions are seized may oppose (faire opposition) the measure within one month of their being notified of the seizure.        These legal persons may also enable the creditor who has requested the seizure to exercise his rights on other possessions. Such an offer is binding on the creditor if the possessions are located on Belgian territory and if their sale is likely to provide full payment.   If the creditor claims that the conditions for replacing the possession seized are not met, he may bring the question before a judge.        If an appeal is lodged, the creditor is summoned to appear before the competent judge (juge de saisies).   The judgment may not authorise provisional execution before it becomes final and cannot be opposed.   The deadline for appeal is one month as from the date of notification of the judgment.        In the light of the measures taken, the Belgian Government considers that there is no risk of repetition of the violation found by the Committee of Ministers in the present case.