AFFAIRE MERCIECA ET AUTRES CONTRE MALTE

Cea de-a 1176-a ședință precum 10 iulie 2013 Anexa 14 (Punctul H46-1) Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)145 Merceca și alții împotriva Maltei Execuția hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Cercetarea nr. 2774/07, Hotărârea din 14 iunie 2011, definitivă la 14 septembrie 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 că el supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "menționate mai jos " 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)653 SlF, asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenția în acest caz și DECIDE danst Malta (Applicația nr. 2174/07; judgment of 14 June 2011, final on 14 September 2011) (în engleză) Case summary Case description The applicants were certificed public accountants who were being sued for damages arising out of claimed negligence. on 1 decembrie 2003, in a preliminary judgment, the Civil Court dismissed their plea that the action should be dismissed. on 12 decembrie 2003, the Civil Court granted leave to apeal. on 29 decembrie 2003, the aplicants lodged their appeal. On 8 June 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as being out of time due to its interpretation of the relevant rules in place. In March 2007, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the Court of Appeal Nevertheless, it found that given that a defect in first-instance proceseding could be remedied on appeal, the right to a fair hearing had not been violated. The European Court held that the applicants had been denied access to a scurt ciocause the applicable rules on time limitats had been eroneously construied by the Court of Appeal in such as to prevent the applicants The just satisfaction awarded has been paid and evidence of payment previously implored. Individual measures: the applicants Following the delivery of the judgment by the court of first instance, the aplicants will have the oportunity to file an appeal against both the partial judgment as well as an appeal against the final judgment should they wish to do. The time limits for such an appeal are clearly provided for by the amendad Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (set out below). Authorities are of the opinie that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures. General Measures General Measures: The Maltase legislation regulating time limitats for appeal has been amended to avoid any misinterpretation. Act XIII of 2005 amended Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cadter 12 of the Laws of Malta). This amendment, set out below, now clarifis the time limits for appeal, inclusivding after partial judgments: În cazul în care, în cursul unei perioade de cinci ani de la data la care s-a acordat o derogare de la obligația de notificare prevăzută la alineatul (1) litera (a) din prezentul articol, autoritatea competentă a statului membru în care s-a acordat o autorizație de introducere pe piață în conformitate cu art. 12 alineatul (1) litera (b) din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1308/2013, autoritatea competentă a statului membru în care s-a acordat o autorizație de introducere pe piață în conformitate cu art. 12 alineatul (1) litera (b) din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1308/2013, autoritatea competentă a statului membru în care s-a acordat autorizația de introducere pe piață în conformitate cu art. 12 alineatul (1) litera (b) din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1308/2013, autoritatea competentă a statului membru în care se aplică prezentul regulament informează Comisia cu privire la motivele care au stat la cererea de autorizare a unui stat membru în conformitate cu art. 12 alineatul (1) litera (b) din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1308/2013, autoritatea competentă a statului membru în care a acordat autorizația de origine a fost acordată în conformitate cu art. 9 alineatul (1) litera (b) din prezentul articol: Provided that an appeal from such separate judgments may be entered before the final judgment only by leave of scurt to be read out in open scurt; such request for leave to appeal shall be made either orally immediately after the delivery of such judgment or by application within 6 days from such judgment and when such leave to appeal from such separate judgments is granted the time for the filing of the appeal in respect thereof shall începe to run from the day on which the said leave is read is read out in open scurt. Publication and disemination: The judgment was publicityshed and diseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta features as a party are automatically simte out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Courts website. The judgment received media coverage by local newspapers (article publicshed on the Times of Malta online website of the 16th June 2011 en titled Government considers that all necessary individual and general measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.

1176e réunion – 10 juillet 2013

Annexe 14

(Point H46-1)

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)145

Mercieca et autres contre Malte

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

(Requête n

o

21974/07, arrêt du 14 juin 2011, définitif le 14 septembre 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 qu’il 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)653

)

;

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.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report Mercieca and others against Malta

(Application No. 21974/07; judgment of 14 June 2011, final on 14 September 2011)

(anglais seulement)

Case summary

1.

Case description

The applicants were certified public accountants who were being sued for damages arising out of claimed negligence. On 1 December 2003, in a preliminary judgment, the Civil Court dismissed their plea that the action should be dismissed. On 12 December 2003, the Civil Court granted leave to appeal. On 29 December 2003, the applicants lodged their appeal. On 8 June 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as being out of time due to its interpretation of the relevant rules in place. In March 2007, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the law had been erroneous and had deprived the applicants of their right to appeal. Nevertheless, it found that given that a defect in first-instance proceedings could be remedied on appeal, the right to a fair hearing had not been violated.

The European Court held that the applicants had been denied access to a court because the applicable rules on time limits had been erroneously construed by the Court of Appeal in such a way as to prevent the applicants’ appeal being examined on the merits (violation of Article 6 § 1).

Individual measures

2.

Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction awarded has been paid and evidence of payment previously supplied.

3.

Individual measures:

The applicants’ domestic proceedings, referred to in the judgment, have now reached the final stages prior to the first instance decision. Following the delivery of the judgment by the court of first instance, the applicants will have the opportunity to file an appeal against both the partial judgment as well as an appeal against the final judgment should they wish to do so. The time limits for such an appeal are clearly provided for by the amended Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (set out below).

The authorities are of the opinion that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures.

General measures

4.

General measures:

The Maltese legislation regulating time limits for appeal has been amended to avoid any future misinterpretation. Act XIII of 2005 amended Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta). This amendment, set out below, now clarifies the time limits for appeal, including after partial judgments:

“231 (1) Where several issues in an action have been determined by separate judgments, appeal from any such judgments may only be entered after the final judgment and within the prescribed time, to be reckoned from the date of such final judgment; and in such an appeal express mention of the judgment or judgments appealed from shall be made:

Provided that an appeal from such separate judgments may be entered before the final judgment only by leave of court to be read out in open court; such request for leave to appeal shall be made either orally immediately after the delivery of such judgment or by application within six days from such judgment and when such leave to appeal from such separate judgments is granted the time for the filing of the appeal in respect thereof shall commence to run from the day on which the said leave is read out in open court.”

5.

Publication and dissemination:

The judgment was published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta features as a party are automatically sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.

The judgment received media coverage by local newspapers (article published on the Times of Malta online website of the 16th June 2011 entitled ‘Maltese accountants win European court case’).

Judgment features in the publication in the names ‘Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012’, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.

State of execution of judgment

The government considers that all necessary individual and general measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.