CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 décembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBC89F41B { margin-left:72pt; text-indent:-36pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s97B8D6BF { width:23.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; 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 } .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 } .sE3B5F3F1 { width:19.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)125 [1]     Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Posti and Rahko against Finland   (Application No. 27824/95, judgment of 24 September 2002, final on 21 May 2003)     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 access to court to contest restrictions on fishing imposed by administrative regulations (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 to comply with Finland'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 the respondent state paid the applicants 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;   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 its examination.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)125   Information on the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Posti and Rahko against Finland     Introductory case summary   The case concerns an infringement of the applicants' right of access to a court in that they could not challenge before a court the lawfulness of decrees issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 1996 and 1998 (based on the 1982 Fishing Act) restricting certain fishing rights leased from the state for the period 1995-1999 (violation of Article 6§1). In 1991, the Supreme Administrative Court, seised by the second applicant with an appeal against a similar decree, stated that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the merits of such a complaint.   The European Court found that where a decree, decision or other measure, albeit not formally addressed to any individual natural or legal person, in substance affects the “civil rights” or “obligations” of such a person or of a group of persons in a similar situation, whether by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention may require that the substance of the decision or measure in question is capable of being challenged by that person or group before a “tribunal” meeting the requirements of that provision.   Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the European Court found that the interference with the applicants' property rights was justified, being lawful and pursuing, by means proportionate to this aim, the legitimate general interest in protecting the fish stocks, not least as the administrative authorities had granted the applicants compensation for the loss suffered.                     Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 16000 EUR 5765 EUR 21765 EUR Paid on 26/08/2003   b) Individual measures   Given that neither the Finnish authorities nor the European Court found a violation of the applicants' property rights, the need to reopen the domestic proceedings does not seem to arise. In addition, the applicants have not engaged any new court action.                   General measures   The Finnish authorities have indicated that in all likelihood, courts will take into account the case-law of the European Court when deciding which statutes may be subject to appeal.   The judgment of the European Court was published in the Finlex database. A summary of the judgment in Finnish was published in the same database. The judgment was sent out to the relevant national authorities, including the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2009 at the 1072nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies