CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s76AA7CE2 { letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC7499758 { font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .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(2008)22 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Indra against the Slovak Republic   (Application No. 46845/99, judgment of 01/02/2005, final on 01/05/2005)     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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the lack of a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal (violation of Article 6§1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the Slovak Republic'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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     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 this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)22   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of   Indra against the Slovak Republic     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a lack of fair hearing before an impartial tribunal in that one of the judges who had taken part in proceedings in 1984 before the Bratislava City Court concerning the applicant's dismissal from work, also took part in proceedings in 1996 before the Supreme Court concerning the applicant's rehabilitation (violation of Article 6§1).   The European Court concluded that, although the two proceedings were distinct, they dealt with the same matters and that as a result, the applicant may have had legitimate fears that the judge in question would not approach his case with the requisite impartiality.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 100 EUR 100 EUR Paid on 01/08/2005   b) Individual measures   The amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure providing reopening of domestic proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the European Court entered into force on 1 September 2005. Under Section   228§1(d), of this Code, a party to proceedings may ask for reopening if the European Court has found a violation, the consequences of which have not been duly remedied by the award of just satisfaction. Under Section 230§1, a request for proceedings to be reopened is to be filed within three months from the moment, when the person filing the request learned about the reason for reopening, or from the moment when he or she could have availed himself or herself of this reason (subjective time limit). Under Section 230§2, in the case referred to in Section 228§1(d), a request for reopening of the proceedings may also be lodged after the expiry of three years from the moment when the domestic judgment became final (objective time limit set for other cases than that referred to in Section 228§1(d)).   According to the transitional provisions, the applicant in this case might have applied for reopening up until 30   November   2005, i.e. three months after the day the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure entered into force.       II.   General measures   It seems that national legislation is sufficiently clear concerning the disqualification of judges. Given the direct effect given to the Convention and the case-law of the European Court in the Slovak Republic and the fact that this is the first violation of this kind against the Slovak Republic, publication and dissemination of the Court's judgment should be sufficient in this case.   The judgment was published in the Judicial Review No. 4/2005 and sent out to all regional courts with a circular letter from the Minister of Justice. Presidents of regional courts have been asked to inform all regional and district court judges under their jurisdiction of the judgment in order to avoid possible similar violations.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies