CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 19 décembre 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 } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2C5FC9C7 { width:19.8%; 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:middle } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s1402361E { width:14.38%; 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:middle } .sF8129EC5 { width:24.44%; 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:middle } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s1AA23634 { width:25.92%; 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:middle } .sBBD26966 { width:15.46%; 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:middle } .s306B661F { width:19.8%; 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:middle } .sE30A12D { width:14.38%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s23136B48 { width:24.44%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s23D57048 { width:25.92%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sA04D444C { width:15.46%; 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:middle } .sE79671F6 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s207DD051 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; 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)157 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Josan and Macovei and others against Moldova   (Applications Nos 37431/02 and 19253/03, judgments of 21 March 2006 and 25 April 2006, final on 21 June 2006 and 25 July 2006)     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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the breach of the applicants' right to a fair hearing and to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as a result of quashing a final judgment favourable to the applicant in the first case and of the adoption of a decision in favor of the counterpart rendering ineffective a final judgment favourable to the applicants in the second case (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and 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 in order to comply with Moldova's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   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 applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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 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   - 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, 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 these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)157   Information on the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of Josan and Macovei and others against Moldova   Introductory case summary   The Josan case concerns violations of the applicant's right to a fair trial and to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions due to a decision taken in October 2002 by the Supreme Court of Justice annulling a final judgment rendered on 11 April 2002 by the appeal court and ordering payment of 155   868 MDL to the applicant (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   In the Macovei and others case, final decisions given in favour of the applicants concerning payment of pension arrears by a pension company were deprived of effect by a subsequent judgment given in favour of the opposing party (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Josan, 37431/02 16   000 EUR 2   000 EUR 1   250 EUR 19   250 EUR Paid on 12/09/2006 Macovei and others, 19253/03+ 6 896 EUR 12   000 EUR 2   463 EUR 21   359 EUR Paid on 05/10/2006   b) Individual measures   In the Josan case, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the reopening of the case. When the European Court of Human Rights pronounced its judgment, these proceedings were still pending. The European Court granted the applicant just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage (covering the payment of 155   868   MDL plus interest) and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a consequence of the annulment.   In the Macovei case, the European Court granted the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage (covering the pension arrears due) and non-pecuniary damage sustained.     II.   General measures   These cases present similarities to the Roşca case (judgment of 22/03/2005, closed with Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)56) in which the Moldovan authorities have already adopted the necessary general measures. The law in force at the material time has since been repealed by the new Code of Civil Procedure which entered into force on 12 June 2003. Under the new Code, final judgments may no longer be annulled on the basis of an annulment lodged by the Prosecutor General.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Moldova has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 December 2007 at the 1013th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies