Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)121 Pekárny a cukrárny klatovy, a.s împotriva Republicii Cehe Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 19 iunie 2013, cu ocazia celei de-a 1174-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor) (Cercetarea n 12266/07, Hotărârea din 12 ianuarie 2012, definitivă la 12 aprilie 2012) 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 ; și măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare care au invitat guvernul din statul membru în cauză să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor 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)48 S DECLAMENTUL pe care l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d.n.: examinarea. Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in cases Nos. 12266/07, 40059/07, 36038/09, 47155/09 mails a cukrárny Klatovy, a.s.v. the Czech Republic report submitted by Czech Government on 3 decembrie 2012 (numai engleză) In its judgment of 12 January 2012, which became final in acordance with Article 44 alineatul (2) litera (b) of the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights held by a majority that there was a încălcarea of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in two of the above cases on account of the failure by the apellate scurts to decident on the merits of the Applicant The Court held that the Applicant Electroluxs access to scurt had efectivly been hindered when scurts dismissed, in 2009, its appeals as non-substanteed due to the past date of the general mietings in question and alleged ininemness of the raported interim Measures, ordered earlier in 2009, and thus prevânced the aplicant from having its civil claim heard in scurt. The present report is intendented to information the Committee of Ministers of individual and general measures of execution of the judgment. [1] INDIVIDUAL MAASURI The Court found no cauzal connection between the violation and damage alleged by the Applicant. It held that the statement of violation sucient as a just satisfaction for any potence moraly damage. The government prin urmare considers that the Court.s judgment does not require introduction of individual measures other than reimbursment to the aplicant of costs and expenses as as awarded by the Court. To reopen the procesedings before domestice scurtes, for instance, appears to brig little effect at this punct, given the object of interim measures challenged by the aplicant. II.GENERAL MEASS Notițele care stau la baza opiniei Curții, interim measures ordered against the applicant did not, per se, constitute a violation of the convention and that the applicant mais right of access to scurt had beend by the apellate scurt in two other instance in 2007 under the same law. The government further note that on 29 October 2012, the Court struck out the applications other applications in principally identifical matters, following the government The government considers that no systemic changes are needed and the Court Odo 611/2002, datad 30 September 2004) in respect of the admissibility criticion pursuant to art. 218 litera (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules (Act No. 99/1963 Coll.). The Court as Supreme and Constitutional Courts, and discussed at the joint miting of the High Courts, on 28 and 29 June 2012, which are competence under the Czech law to hear appeals in displays corporations, with a view to aligning viitoare case law with the judgment. În plus, judges of the civil sections of all regional scurts, which are competent to hear appeals against interim measures ordered in any civil procedeedings, have acquainted themselves with the judgment, in order to ensure that the Court III. CONCLUZIE Government of the Czech Republic conclusions that all the necessary measures to execute the judgment have been taken. [1] The issue of payment of just satisfaction is dealt with separately.
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)121
Pekárny a cukrárny klatovy, a.s contre République tchèque
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 19 juin 2013,
lors de la 1174e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)
(Requête n
o
12266/07, arrêt du 12 janvier 2012, définitif le 12 avril 2012)
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
)
;
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 the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
in cases Nos. 12266/07, 40059/07, 36038/09, 47155/09 –
Pekárny a cukrárny Klatovy, a.s. v. the Czech Republic
Action report submitted by the Czech Government on 3 December 2012
(Anglais seulement)
In its judgment of 12 January 2012, which became final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 b) of the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights held by a majority that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in two of the above cases on account of the failure by the appellate courts to decide on the merits of the Applicant’s appeals against interim measures prohibiting the latter to organise its general meetings. The Court held that the Applicant’s access to court had effectively been hindered when courts dismissed, in 2009, its appeals as non-substantiated due to the past date of the general meetings in question and alleged ineffectiveness of the related interim measures, ordered earlier in 2009, and thus prevented the applicant from having its civil claim heard in court. The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers of individual and general measures of execution of the judgment.
[1]
I.
The Court found no causal connection between the violation and damage alleged by the Applicant. It held that the statement of violation sufficed as a just satisfaction for any potential non-pecuniary damage. The government therefore considers that the Court’s judgment does not require introduction of individual measures other than reimbursement to the applicant of costs and expenses as awarded by the Court. To reopen the proceedings before domestic courts, for instance, appears to bring little effect at this point, given the object of interim measures challenged by the applicant.
II.
The government notes that in the Court’s opinion, the interim measures ordered against the applicant did not, per se, constitute a violation of the Convention and that the applicant’s right of access to court had been respected by the appellate court in two other instances in 2007 under the same law. The government further notes that on 29 October 2012, the Court struck out the applicant’s other applications in principally identical matters, following the government’s unilateral declaration of 6 June 2012 which acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s rights to the extent of the above judgment.
The government considers that no systemic changes are needed and the Court’s legal opinion can be accommodated within the existing legislative framework, by means of an extended interpretation by ordinary courts of the notion of “non-substantiated [appeal]” as provided for in jurisprudence (e.g. Supreme Court, 29
Odo 611/2002, dated 30 September 2004) in respect of the admissibility criterion pursuant to article
218
c) of the Civil Procedure Rules (Act No. 99/1963 Coll.). The Court’s judgment has been forwarded to and consulted with the judges of the appellate courts concerned as well as the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, and discussed at the joint meeting of the High Courts, on 28 and 29 June 2012, which are competent under the Czech law to hear appeals in disputes concerning corporations, with a view to aligning future case law with the judgment. In addition, judges of the civil sections of all regional courts, which are competent to hear appeals against interim measures ordered in any civil proceedings, have acquainted themselves with the judgment, in order to ensure that the Court’s opinion be respected also in other than corporate proceedings where a similar situation may occur in respect of passing of deadlines or events concerned by the interim measures.
III.
The Government of the Czech Republic concludes that all the necessary measures to execute the judgment have been taken.
[1]
The issue of payment of just satisfaction is dealt with separately.