AFFAIRE MILEVA ET AUTRES CONTRE LA BULGARIE

Cea de-a 1176-a ședință precum 10 iulie 2013 Anexa 8 (Punctul H46-1) Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)139 Mileva și alții împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (întrebarea nr. 43449/02, Hotărârea din 25/1/2010, definitivă 25/02/2011) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 10 iulie 2013, cu ocazia celei de-a 1176-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată reamintind obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare care au invitat guvernul din statul pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligației respective După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013) 717 S Punându-se seama că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLAMENTUL pe care și l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d'en . Acțiune Report (numai în limba engleză) ase of ileva and others v. ulgaria Application No. 43449/02, judgment of 25 November 2010 Convention violation found This case's the f ailure of the authorities (between 2000 and 2004) to dissarce their pozitiv obligation to ensure the applicants main right to respect for their homes and their private and family lives by taking supporte measures to protect them from the disturbances coming from a computer Club which operated round the clock and whose clients were generating a high level of alise in and around a building which had an esentially residential character (violation of Article of Article) 8). Individual Measures The compensation awarded has been transferred to the applicants The Court did not criticise the relevant domestic legislation and judicial Practice, summarised in Õ50 main¶71 of the judgment. It described several avenues of redress which could, if successful, have protected the applicants mainights under Article 8. Thus, the domestic legislation and judicial Practice seem to be in compliment with the requirements of the convention. Therefore, the authorities consider that the încălcarea found in this case is the result of an izolated failure of the competent bodies to comply with their obligations under domestic law, to approach the matter with due diligence and to give proper consideration to all conteting interests (see §101 of the judgment). b) Publication and dissemination of the judgment In view of the izolated natura of the violation found in this case, the publicity and disemination of the judgment seem usef to prevent similar in the viitor. The translation of the judgment is available on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.mjs.bg/47 translated judgment was simte to the competint authorities. The government believes that no aditiv measures are nevoie de for the execution of the judgment in this case.

1176e réunion – 10 juillet 2013

Annexe 8

(Point H46-1)

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)139

Mileva et autres contre Bulgarie

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n

o

43449/02, arrêt du 25/11/2010, définitif 25/02/2011)

(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 10 juillet 2013,

lors de la 1176e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in integrum

;

et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables

;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document

DH-DD(2013)717

)

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Action Report

(anglais seulement)

C

ase of

M

ileva and others v.

B

ulgaria

Application No. 43449/02, judgment of 25 November 2010

Convention violation found

This case concerns the f

ailure of the authorities (between 2000 and 2004) to discharge their positive obligation to ensure the applicants’ right to respect for their homes and their private and family lives by taking appropriate measures to protect them from the disturbances coming from a computer club which operated round the clock and whose clients were generating a high level of noise in and around a building which had an essentially residential character (violation of Article

8).

Individual measures

The compensation awarded has been transferred to the applicants’ accounts on 29 March 2011.

The computer club was closed in 2004 and currently there is no information of nuisances.

No other individual measures seem to be appropriate to redress the violation found by the Court in this case.

General measures

a)

Source of the violation

The Court did not criticise the relevant domestic legislation and judicial practice, summarised in §50 – §71 of the judgment. It described several avenues of redress which could, if successful, have protected the applicants’ rights under Article 8. Thus, the domestic legislation and judicial practice seem to be in compliance with the requirements of the Convention.

Therefore, the authorities consider that the violation found in this case is the result of an isolated failure of the competent bodies

to comply with their obligations under domestic law, to approach the matter with due diligence and to give proper consideration to all competing interests (see

b) Publication and dissemination of the judgment

In view of the isolated nature of the violation found in this case, the publication and dissemination of the judgment seem useful to prevent similar violations in the future.

The translation of the judgment is available on the Ministry of justice website at

http://www.mjs.bg/47

. The translated judgment was sent to the competent authorities.

The government believes that no additional measures are necessary for the execution of the judgment in this case.