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 } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; 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 } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sB59CBA1A { color:#000080 } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .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)139 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Stoimenov against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   (Application No. 17995/02, judgment of 05/04/07, final on 05/07/07)     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 unfairness of criminal proceedings during which the principle of equality of arms was not observed by the trial court as a result of the refusal of the applicant's repeated requests for an alternative expert examination (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 its 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 by the Court in its 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   - 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(2009)139   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Stoimenov against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant due to the failure to respect the principle of equality of arms was not observed by the trial court. The national courts dismissed the applicant's repeated requests for an alternative expert report and based their judgments on expert reports produced by the Ministry of Interior, which had brought criminal charges against him, even though such reports had not been commissioned by any court (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 0 1   000 EUR 500 EUR 1   500 EUR Paid on 25/09/2007   b) Individual measures   In 2001 the applicant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment as a result of the proceedings at issue. He was released from prison on 24/06/2005. On 19/09/2007 the Kočani Court of First Instance allowed the reopening of the proceedings and the court appointed an independent Institute for Forensic Medicine and Criminology from Skopje to conduct an expert examination. On 05/01/2009 the Kočani Court of First Instance confirmed the applicant's previous conviction. This judgment has been appealed by the applicant. Nevertheless, the shortcoming identified by the Court's judgment has been remedied because the domestic court commissioned an independent and alternative expert report in the reopened proceedings. It appears therefore that no other individual measure is necessary in this case.     II.   General measures   On 29/06/2007 the Supreme Court rendered a legal opinion concerning the present case. It confirmed that the Convention was an integral part of the domestic legal order and that the domestic courts should refer to the Court's judgments in their reasoning. The Supreme Court stated that the domestic courts should respect the right to a fair trial and make sure that the principle of equality of arms is observed in criminal proceedings. The opinion of the Supreme Court was published on its website ( www.vrhoven.sud.mk ).   The authorities of the respondent state also submitted a copy of a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court concerning an unrelated domestic case, in which it reiterated that domestic courts are under an obligation to respect the right to a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.   The judgment was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice ( www.pravda.gov.mk ). The Government Agent forwarded the judgment with an explanatory note to the Kočani Court of First Instance and to the Directorate for Execution of Sanctions.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” 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