CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6A5D7EE7 { width:29.33pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)29 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Napijalo against Croatia   (Application No. 66485/01, judgment of 13 November 2003, final on 13 February 2004)     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 referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgment 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 unjustified confiscation of the applicant's passport by the authorities for more than two years (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4), as well as the excessive length of the civil proceedings concerning the return of the passport (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Croatia's 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 in the judgment, 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   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close its examination.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)29   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Napijalo against Croatia     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the infringement of the applicant's freedom of movement due to the seizure of his passport by the customs authorities for more than two years for the non-payment of a fine imposed on him at a border checkpoint in February 1999 (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No 4). The European Court could find no justification for the customs authorities' refusal to return the applicant's passport or for the Zagreb Municipal Court's dismissal of his application for an interim measure, as no proceedings had been instituted against him for any customs offence.   The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings brought by the applicant before the civil courts seeking the return of his passport and compensation for damages. The proceedings began on 02/03/99 and the appeal court delivered its judgment on 10/09/2002 (more than 3 years and 6 months) (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 - 2   000 euros - 2   000 euros Paid on 23/03/2004   b) Individual measures   The applicant's passport was returned to him in April 2001. His action for damages as a result of the seizure of his passport was still pending when the Court delivered its judgment. On 15 April 2004 the first instance court awarded the applicant 15 000 Croatian kunas (about 2 000 euros). Following an appeal, these proceedings are still pending at national level. The competent courts' attention was drawn to the European Court's findings with a view to accelerating the proceedings as far as possible.     II.   General measures   Measures concerning the breach of the freedom of movement   The government is of the opinion that the law applicable at the material time governing the conditions under which the authorities may seize passports provided sufficient safeguards, but that it was wrongfully applied in the present case, which is an isolated one. These legal provisions have been replaced by the Act on Travel Documents of Croatian Citizens ( Official Gazette , No.77/99), which contains provisions similar to those into force at the relevant time.   Moreover, the government considers that the direct effect of the case-law of the European Court, which domestic courts are beginning to recognise, will prevent new violations in future similar to that found in the present case by ensuring that the law is interpreted in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. With a view to facilitating this development, the authorities published the judgment of the European Court, in Croat, on the official website of the Ministry of Justice www.provosudje.hr and transmitted it to all customs and police services and to the competent courts.   Measures concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings   Measures have already been adopted in the framework of the examination of the Horvat case (judgment of 26 July 2001) closed by Resolution ResDH(2005)60 following:   - the adoption of general measures to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and avoid new violations (Act amending the Act on Civil Procedure, adopted on 14 July 2003, which aims at strengthening procedural discipline and simplifying civil proceedings) and   - the introduction of an effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings (new Article 63 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, into force since 15 March 2002).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Croatia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies