Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)7 [1] S. împotriva Estoniei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 17779/08, Hotărârea din 4 octombrie 2011, definitivă la 4 ianuarie 2012) 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 (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)22E [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)22E S Punând la dispoziție toate măsurile necesare în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1), DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d'en . ACȚIUNEA REPORT S. v. Estonia Application No. 17779/08, Judgment of 4 October 2011 Case description The caseta se referă lad the involuntary internment of the applicant in a psihiatric spitalic. The Court noted that Ms S. had been suffering from a mental illness for several years before her spitalisation in November 2006. Her treatment as an outpacient had been inefectiv and she had become violente towards her partner. The relevant Estonian law, the Mental Health Act, was suciently clear as to the situations in which compulsory admision for inpacient could could be ordered. Ms S. mails case had come within those situations. Priviri la ea actual internal, the Court not that she had not been heard by the court before it authorised it her compulsory admisie. While thatfact alone had not been at odds with domestic law, acording to the Code of Civil Procedure, she should have been heard promptly once her resolution had been ordered. However, the court had heard Ms S. 15 zile după ce a decis să ia o decizie în ceea ce privește tratamentul cu droguri în spitalul său, cu condiția ca aceasta să fie acceptată, cu condiția ca această concluzie să fie luată de către Estonian Supreme Court had recognised mai mult timp și să nu fie încălcată. The Court held that there had, prin urmare, been a violation of Article § 1 (right to Liberty and security of person). Individual measures No adițional individual measures apart from payment of just satisfaction are need (EUR 5,000 for moraly damage and EUR 2,118.60 for costs and expenses were paid on 20/02/2012). As can be seen from the judgment the Estonian Supreme Court admitted procedural deficiencies only did not draw any concluzii from that assessment and afforded the applicant no redress. As the Court afforded respective redress in the form of moraly damage in amount of 5000 euro, the consecvences of the violation for the aplicant are remedied (see also para. 3 below; in any other respect the domestic decisions requising the applicant were justid; it should also be noted that the aplicant was discharied from the psychiatric spital in September 2007 General Measures The judgment of the Court was translated into Estonian and publicityshed on the web-site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.vm.ee/?q=taxonomy/term/229 ) and widely disseminated, inclusivding to the authorities directly vised. No other general measures were necessary to take as the special violation was of an izolated nature for the following realons. The Court in its judgment did not find any deficiencies in the Estonian legal reglementation. The Court also noted that it had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the medicoint and is satisfied that the applicant was shown to have been a main of uns mind It also noted that the assessment of the applicant The Court only found that in the applicicants case the applicant was not detained in acordance with a procedure precribed by law The Court found that the delay was a incalcation of the convention. Thus, application the valid legal regulation properly further viols should be avoided. Payment of just satisfaction Estonia has submitted care ține de informare on just satisfaction payment in March 2012. Concluzii of the respondent State Estonia has paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment in due time; no aditival measures were to be taken as the case was an izolated one. Estonia finds that the judgment is implemented properly and fully and aks to close the examination of the case. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 7 martie 2013 cu ocazia celei de a 1164-a reuniuni a Delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)7
[1]
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête n
o
17779/08, arrêt du 4 octobre 2011, définitif le 4 janvier 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 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 (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.
Application No. 17779/08, Judgment of 4 October 2011
1)
Case description
:
The case concerned the involuntary internment of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital. The Court noted that Ms S. had been suffering from a mental illness for several years before her hospitalisation in November 2006. Her treatment as an outpatient had been ineffective and she had become violent towards her partner. The relevant Estonian law, the Mental Health Act, was sufficiently clear as to the situations in which compulsory admission for inpatient treatment could be ordered. Ms S.’s case had come within those situations. As regards her actual internment, the Court noted that she had not been heard by the court before it authorised her compulsory admission. While that fact alone had not been at odds with domestic law, according to the Code of Civil Procedure, she should have been heard promptly once her confinement had been ordered. However, the court had heard Ms S. only 15 days after it decided to authorise her hospital admission, which – the Estonian Supreme Court had recognised – had been too long and in violation of domestic law. The Court reached the same conclusion. In noted that those 15 days had represented a significant portion of the overall period during which Ms S. had been hospitalised. There had not been any consequences favourable to her, nor any redress, despite the Supreme Court’s conclusion of a violation. The Court held that there had, therefore, been a violation of Article
5
1.(right to liberty and security of person).
2)
Individual measures
:
No additional individual measures apart from payment of just satisfaction are needed (EUR
5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,118.60 for costs and expenses were paid on 20/02/2012). As can be seen from the judgment the Estonian Supreme Court admitted procedural deficiencies only did not draw any conclusions from that assessment and afforded the applicant no redress. As the Court afforded respective redress in the form of non-pecuniary damage in amount of 5000 euros, the consequences of the violation for the applicant are remedied (
see also para. 3 below; in any other respect the domestic decisions regarding the applicant were justified; it should also be noted that the applicant was discharged from the psychiatric hospital in September 2007
).
3)
General measures
:
The judgment of the Court was translated into Estonian and published on the web-site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (
http://www.vm.ee/?q=taxonomy/term/229
) and widely disseminated, including to the authorities directly concerned.
No other general measures were necessary to take as the specific violation was of an isolated nature for the following reasons.
The Court in its judgment did not find any deficiencies in the Estonian legal regulation. The Court also noted that it had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the medical opinion and is satisfied that the applicant was shown to have been a “person of unsound mind” whose mental disorder warranted compulsory admission. It also noted that the assessment of the applicant’s medical condition and her dangerousness were later confirmed by the forensic psychiatric opinion and other evidence gathered in the course of the criminal proceedings. The Court only found that in the applicant’s case the applicant was not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law – it noted that although the Supreme Court found that the 15-day delay that elapsed before the County Court heard the applicant constituted a “violation of the norms of procedure”, it drew no further conclusions from that assessment and afforded the applicant no redress. The Court found that the delay was a violation of the Convention.
Thus, applying the valid legal regulation properly further violations should be avoided.
4)
Payment of just satisfaction
:
Estonia has submitted relevant information on just satisfaction payment in March 2012.
5)
Conclusions of the respondent State
:
Estonia has paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment in due time; no additional measures were to be taken as the case was an isolated one. Estonia finds that the judgment is implemented properly and fully and asks to close the examination of the case.
[1]
Adoptée par le Comité des
Ministres le 7 mars 2013 lors de la 1164e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2]
En anglais uniquement