Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)2 [1] Makedonski împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 36036/04, Hotărârea din 20 ianuarie 2011, definitivă la 20 aprilie 2011) 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 încălcările constatate (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)154E [2] care reamintește obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (3) (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 ; Am invitat guvernul statului pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor menționate anterior 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)154E S DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d'en . ACȚIUNEA REPORT on the implementation of the judgment of the ECTHR in the case of Makedonski v. BULGARIA Application nr. 36036/04 Judgment of 20 January 2011 Final on 20 April 2011 The Facts The case raporteaza mainly to lengthy prohibition to leave the country (violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No 4 to the convention). The Court considered that The case also se referă la excesul length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) and lack of an efectiv remedy with this remedy with this privition (violation of Article 13 of the Convention). The aplicant, a Bulgarian national, was încarced for embalizment in 1992. In 1994 he was impuned with a prohibition to leave the country. In 2004 the district prosecutor affed the prohibition and discontinued the criminal procedeedings against the applicant. The period of criminal proceseding lasted approximately twelve years and the ban to leave the country maimately ten years. Individual meas (a) The compensation was duly transferred to the applicants The translation of the judgment in Bulgarian will be available soon on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx A summary of the judgment in Bulgarian was publicished on the National Institute of Justice Website [3] in the monthly Newsletter of Court Practice in Human Rights, issue 5 from February 2011, pagina 26. Excesive length of proceedings and lack of efectiv remedies in this respect Cu privire la aceste încălcări ale prezentelor legi raportează cu privire la rezultatele examinării în cadrul grupului Kitov de case aswell as in the pilot judgments under the cases of Dimitrov and Hamanov. The respective general measures are inclusded in the action plan for legislative amendments aswell as in the interim reports for the abovement groups. Amendamente în legislație în view of the prohibition to leave the country in this case with vizion to the violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No 4 the Court established that Acest lucru este în cazul în care new Criminal Procedure Code in force from 29.04.2006 provides for right for the a acuzed, thatly the deflant to contemplation the prohibition to leave the country at any time during the criminal procesedings. Under Art.68 [4] The application of this measure is not automatic but depends on the circumstances of the circumstances of the context case. During the past several years the prohibition to travel abroad is impuned relatively sedom. The acuzat may request temporary lifting of the measure at at any time during the pre-trial faze and the prosecutor is obligad to response to such request within three days from its submission. The refuzal is subject to immediate appeal in front of the first-instance scurt. At the trial stagier the temporary lifting of the ban may be requested in front of the trial scurt. Furtermore, under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Art.68 the acuzad is entitled to apply for a full revocation of the prohibition before the respective Court at any time during both pre-trial and scurt proceedings. The court is entitled to revoke the prohibition, provided that there is no risk that the apped, respectively the deflant will flee abroad. Well-established scurt Practice exists with this privince where the scurts examineaza thoroughly all circumstances raported to the particularar case [5] Compensatory remedy The National Legislation provides an efectiv Compensatory domestic remedy under Art.2 of the 1988 State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damages Act with vizion to unlawful prohibition to leave the country. The respective Courts have already heard such complaints and awarded respective compensation (see Decision of the Plovdiv Appelate Court from 06.12.2010 under civil case No 916/2010). The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria believes that measures taken have foulied the requirements that ase from the Court Sofia, 16 November 2012 Enclosed: Sofia District Court Ruling under a.p.c.c No 707/2008, Sofia District Court Ruling under p.c. No 888/2007, Decision of the Plovdiv Appelate Court from 6.12.2010 under c.c. No 916/2010 in Bulgarian [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 7 martie 2013 în cadrul celei de-a 1164-a ședințe a Delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză. [3] http://www.nij.bg/Articole/Articole.aspx?lang=bg-BG&pageid=548 [4] art. 68, CPC (1) (Amended, SG No. 109/2008) In pre-trial procesedings, where the appud party has been constituted in this capacity been constituted of a serious intentional ofense, the prosecutor may prohibit the apped party from leaving the bondaries of the Republic of Bulgaria, unless the prosecutor has given authorisation to this effect. Border control points shall immediately be notied of the imperativ prohibition. (2) The prosecutor shall rule within three days on the request for authorisation under Paragraph 1 of the acuzăd party or his/her defence counsel. (3) The refuzal of the prosecutor shall be subject to appeal before the content Court of first instance. (4) The court shall consider forthwith the appeal in a single-judge panel, deliberating privatately, and shall make pronouncement by a ruling, thus confirming the refuzal of the prosecutor or allowing the acuzăd party to leave the bundarys of the republic of Bulgaria for a set period. The ruling shall be final. (5) At the request of the a acuzed party or his/her defence counsel, the court may repeal the prohibition under Paragraph 1 in pursuance of the procesdure under Paragraph 4, where there is no risk for the apped party to abscond outside this country. (6) În scurt proceseding the powers pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (5) shall be exercised by the scurt examining the case. The ruling of the court shall be subject to appeal by accessory appeal or protestant. [5] E.g. Sofia District Court Ruling under a.p.c.c.c No 707/2008, Sofia District Court Ruling under p.c. No 888/2007 etc.
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)2
[1]
Makedonski contre Bulgarie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête n
o
36036/04, arrêt du 20 janvier 2011, définitif le 20 avril 2011)
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 les violations constatées (voir document
)
[2]
;
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 aux obligations susmentionnées
;
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.
on the implementation of the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of
Makedonski v. BULGARIA
Application no. 36036/04
Judgment of 20 January 2011
Final on 20 April 2011
The Facts
The case relates mainly to lengthy prohibition to leave the country (violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No 4 to the Convention). The Court considered that “the authorities are not entitled to maintain restrictions on an individual’s freedom of movement over lengthy periods without periodic reassessments of their justification”. The case also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6, § 1 of the Convention) and lack of an effective remedy with this regard (violation of Article 13 of the Convention).
The applicant,
a Bulgarian national,
was charged for embezzlement in 1992. In 1994 he was imposed with a prohibition to leave the country. In 2004 the district prosecutor’s office lifted the prohibition and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The period of criminal proceedings lasted approximately twelve years and the ban to leave the country – approximately ten years.
Individual measures
a) The compensation was duly transferred to the applicants’ account on 1 June 2011.
b)
No additional individual measures were taken following the Court’s judgment since the ban to leave the country has been lifted and the criminal proceedings have ended. Thus, the applicant is no longer suffering consequences of the violation.
General measures
a)
Publication and dissemination of the judgment.
The translation of the judgment in Bulgarian will be available soon on the Ministry of Justice website at
http://www.justice.government.bg/new/Pages/Verdicts/Default.aspx
.
A summary of the judgment in Bulgarian was published on the National Institute of Justice website
[3]
in the monthly Bulletin of Court Practice in Human Rights, issue 5 from February 2011, page 26.
b)
Excessive length of proceedings and lack of effective remedies in this respect
.
With regard to these violations the present judgment relates to issues examined in the Kitov group of cases as well as in the pilot judgments under the cases of Dimitrov and Hamanov. The respective general measures are included in the action plan for legislative amendments as well as in the interim reports for the abovementioned groups.
c)
Amendments in legislation in view of the prohibition to leave the country
In this case with regard to the violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No 4 the Court established that
“the authorities are not entitled to maintain restrictions on an individual’s freedom of movement over lengthy periods without periodic reassessments of their justification”.
That is why the new Criminal Procedure Code in force from 29.04.2006 provides for right for the accused, respectively the defendant to contest the prohibition to leave the country at any time during the criminal proceedings.
Under Art.68
[4]
of the Criminal Procedure Code the prosecutor may prohibit the accused to leave the state only in case he/she is charged with a serious intentional criminal offence (punishable by more than five years of imprisonment). The application of this measure is not automatic but depends on the circumstances of the relevant case. During the past several years the prohibition to travel abroad is imposed relatively seldom.
The accused may request temporary lifting of the measure at any time during the pre-trial phase and the prosecutor is obliged to respond to such request within three days from its submission. The refusal is subject to immediate appeal in front of the respective first-instance court. At the trial stage the temporary lifting of the ban may be requested in front of the trial court.
Furthermore, under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Art.68 the accused is entitled to apply for a full revocation of the prohibition before the respective court at any time during both pre-trial and court proceedings. The court is entitled to revoke the prohibition, provided that there is no risk that the accused, respectively the defendant will flee abroad. Well-established court practice exists with this regard where the courts examine thoroughly all circumstances related to the particular case
[5]
.
d)
Compensatory remedy
The national legislation provides an effective compensatory domestic remedy under Art.2 of the 1988 State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damages Act with regard to unlawful prohibition to leave the country. The respective courts have already heard such complaints and awarded respective compensation (see Decision of the Plovdiv Appellate Court from 06.12.2010 under civil case № 916/2010).
The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria believes that the measures taken have fulfilled the requirements that arise from the Court’s judgment and that as a result similar violations will be prevented in the future. In view of the above the Government is of the opinion that the Committee of Ministers may consider to close the supervision of the execution of the present case.
Sofia, 16 November 2012
Enclosed: Sofia District Court Ruling under a.p.c.c № 707/2008, Sofia District Court Ruling under p.c.c. № 888/2007, Decision of the Plovdiv Appellate Court from 6.12.2010 under c.c. № 916/2010 in Bulgarian
[1]
Adoptée par le Comité des
Ministres le 7 mars 2013 lors de la 1164e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2]
En anglais uniquement.
[3]
http://www.nij.bg/Articles/Articles.aspx?lang=bg-BG&pageid=548
[4]
Article 68, CPC
(1) (Amended, SG No. 109/2008) In pre-trial proceedings, where the accused party has been constituted in this capacity because of a serious intentional criminal offence, the prosecutor may prohibit the accused party from leaving the boundaries of the Republic of Bulgaria, unless the prosecutor has given authorisation to this effect. Border control points shall immediately be notified of the imposed prohibition.
(2) The prosecutor shall rule within three days on the request for authorisation under Paragraph 1 of the accused party or his/her defence counsel.
(3) The refusal of the prosecutor shall be subject to appeal before the competent court of first instance.
(4) The court shall consider forthwith the appeal in a single-judge panel, deliberating privately, and shall make pronouncement by a ruling, thus confirming the refusal of the prosecutor or allowing the accused party to leave the boundaries of the Republic of Bulgaria for a set period. The ruling shall be final.
(5) At the request of the accused party or his/her defence counsel, the court may repeal the prohibition under Paragraph 1 in pursuance of the procedure under Paragraph 4, where there is no risk for the accused party to abscond outside this country.
(6) In court proceedings the powers pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (5) shall be exercised by the court examining the case. The ruling of the court shall be subject to appeal by accessory appeal or protest.
[5]
E.g. Sofia District Court Ruling under a.p.c.c № 707/2008, Sofia District Court Ruling under p.c.c. № 888/2007, etc.