AFFAIRE BARAĆ ET AUTRES CONTRE LE MONTÉNÉGRO

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)64 Barać și alții împotriva Muntenegrului Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 47974/06, Hotărârea din 13/12/2011, definitivă la 13/03/2012/) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 30 aprilie 2013, cu ocazia celei de-a 1169-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) DECLAMENTUL pe care l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . Acțiune report Barać and Others v. Montenegro, Application No. 47974/06 judgment of 13 decembrie 2011, final on 13 March 2012 (numai în limba engleză) Case description Această rubrică se referă la încălcarea dreptului de a face fair trial on account of thefact that the domestic final judgment rendred against them had been based on a law which was no longer in force at the time (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1). The European Court stated in particular athat no fair trial could be considered to have been held where the reason given in the relevant domestic decision was not mend by the domestic legislation and, prin urmare, was not a legally valid one... The Court observad furtermore that the final decision rendred by the High Court in Podgorica against the applicants linked solely on an Act which had previously been declarad un constitutional and a aparut to that effect alreadypublicationshed in the Official Gazette (§33). Individual measures According to the applicable legislation (art. 428a of the Civil Procedure Law), the applicants were entitled to request reopening of the impugned proceedings within three months following to the European Court. The applicants did not, însă, lodge a request for reopening of the impugned civil procesings. The European Court has însă awarded just satisfaction to the aplicants in respect of the non pecuniary damage sustained. In view of thesefacts, no individual measure is required. III General Measures The Constitution of Montenegro provides that the Courts shall administer justice on the bazis of the Constitution, laws and ratified international treaties (art. 118). It further provides that any law must be command with the Constitution (art. 145). The violation found in this case stems prin urmare from the implement of the legislation by the domestic scurts in this particular case. The Government of Montenegro thus considers that the publicity and disemination of the European Court The European Court Electroluxs judgment has also been publicished on the website of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, which make it available to all interested persons. The government wishes to stres that it is aware of no other recorded case in Montenegro where national scurts applied a law, which was previously proclamed un constitutional by the Constitutional Court. It can be prin urmare concluded that the application of the supports, which were declarad un constitutional, in this was an isoled second. for this reason, the government considers that no other general measures, aparte from publicity and disemination, are called for in this case. The amounts awarded to the aplicants in respect of moraly damages aswell as costs and expenses were paid to the aplicants within the applicants set by the European Court. Concluzii of the respondent State In view of the abovefacts, the Government of Montenegro considerers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar viols and that Montenegro has compliment with its obligation under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the convention. It is prin urmare propusd to the Committee of Ministers to a adoption a final resolution clearning the supervision of execution of this case. Representative of Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights Zoran Pažin

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)64

Barać et autres contre Monténégro

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

(Requête n

o

47974/06, arrêt du 13/12/2011, définitif le 13/03/2012)

(adoptée par le Comité de Ministres le 30 avril 2013,

lors de la 1169e 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)105E

)

;

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

Barać and Others v. Montenegro, Application No. 47974/06

judgment of 13 December 2011, final on 13 March 2012

(anglais seulement)

I

Case description

This case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the fact that the domestic final judgment rendered against them had been based on a law which was no longer in force at the relevant time (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

The European Court stated in particular “that no fair trial could be considered to have been held where the reason given in the relevant domestic decision was not envisaged by the domestic legislation and, therefore, was not a legally valid one...” (§32). The Court observed furthermore that the final decision rendered by the High Court in Podgorica against the applicants relied solely on an Act which had previously been declared unconstitutional and a relevant decision to that effect already published in the Official Gazette (§33).

II

Individual measures

According to the applicable legislation (Article 428a of the Civil Procedure Law), the applicants were entitled to request reopening of the impugned proceedings within three months following to the European Court’s judgment in this case. The applicants did not, however, lodge a request for reopening of the impugned civil proceedings.

The European Court has however awarded just satisfaction to the applicants in respect of the non

‑

pecuniary damage sustained.

In view of these facts, no individual measure is required.

III

General measures

The Constitution of Montenegro provides that the courts shall administer justice on the basis of the Constitution, laws and ratified international treaties (Article 118). It further provides that any law must be compliant with the Constitution (Article 145).

The violation found in this case stems therefore from the misapplication of the legislation by the domestic courts in this particular case. The Government of Montenegro thus considers that the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment in this case will suffice to prevent similar violations. The European Court’s judgment in this case was accordingly published in the “Official Gazette of Montenegro”, No. 17/2012 of 27 March 2012. The European Court’s judgment has also been published on the website of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, which made it available to all interested persons.

The government wishes to stress that it is aware of no other recorded case in Montenegro where national courts applied a law, which was previously proclaimed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. It can be therefore concluded that the application of the relevant provisions, which were declared unconstitutional, in this was an isolated occurrence. For this reason, the government considers that no other general measures, apart from publication and dissemination, are called for in this case.

IV

Just satisfaction

The amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damages as well as costs and expenses were paid to the applicants within the deadline set by the European Court.

V

Conclusions of the respondent State

In view of the above facts, the Government of Montenegro considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Montenegro has thus complied with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. It is therefore proposed to the Committee of Ministers to adopt a final resolution closing the supervision of execution of this case.

Representative of Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights

Zoran Pažin