AFFAIRE MINCHEVA CONTRE LA BULGARIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)153 [1] Mincheva împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (solicitarea nr. 21558/03, Hotărârea 02/09/2010, definitivă la 02/12/2009) 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(2012) 916E [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 ; și 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, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte] sau [și prin care se remarcă faptul că: nicio satisfacție echitabilă nu a fost acordată de Curte în prezenta cauză (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012) 916E Având în vedere faptul că toate măsurile impuse de art. 46 alineatul (1) au fost adoptate DECURSARE că își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . . ACȚIUNEA REPORT Case Mincheva v. Bulgaria, Aplicația nr. 21558/03 Judgment of 02 September 2010, Final on 02 Decembrie 2010 1. Convenție de încălcare a dreptului comunitar The case raports to the excesiv length of civil proceedings referesing the custody of the applicicants sound (violation of Art. 6 § 1) and lack of efectiv remedy in this respect (violation of Art. 13). It assessment also the violation of the applicicantes right to respect for her family life due to the authorities ui failure to take the necessary Practical measures to enforce the applications contact rights (between 1997 and 2003) which had been granted to her by a final judicial decision (violation of Art. 8). 2. Individual measures Compensația a fost transferată către aplicațiile care au loc pe 02.03.2011. După 2003 the violation of the applicicants right to family life aparently ceased as the applicant established a regulal contact with her so no measures on the parts of the authorities quality (as noted in § 41 of the Court. In any event the boy is already of age (he was born in 1990) so no measures on the part of the authorities quasing the contacts with his mother are any longer required. No further individual measures are necessary for execution of the judgment. 3. General Measures 3.1 Violation of Article 8 a) legislative measures The violation of Article 8 resulted from the legislation in force at the time (Code of Civil Procedure of 1952), which did not allow the body responsible for the execution of contact rights to take Practical Measures in order to overcome the refuzal of overcome of the parinti to allow the other parinte to meet the child. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 allowed only the impozit of fines. The legislation criticized in the European Court.s judgment has been repealed and replaced by a new Code of Civil Procedure which entered into force in 2008 and a new Family Code which entered into force in 2009. The current domestic legal framework referenting execution of contact rights is provided in Articles 323, 527 and 528 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as in Article 59 of the Family Code and Article 23 (6) of the Law for the Protection of the Child. According to Article 323 §1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, parti in divort proceedings can request temporary measures regarding the care of the children and their intretinere. The request for temporary meas shall be examined either immediately or within two weeks after the hearing at which it has been submitted. În scurt timp, nu se pune problema appeal, dar poate fi amendat de sama scurtă.Acording to Article 528 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, the body responsible for the execution of a judgment requiling child custody or contact rights can seek the asistence of the police and the social services, in addition to imposing fines on the non-complying party. Acording to Article 59, §§ 8 and 9 of the Family Code, the scurt in divort procedings ca also take Measures placed at the protection of the child, such as the obligation for a parinte to meet a child in the presence of the other parent or a third person or the obligation to miet the child at particular place. Such Measures can be taken also after the end of the divort procedeedings. Finally, under Article 23 (6) of the Child Protection Act, the social services can take Measures placed at facilitating the contacts between children and parinti. (b) publication and disemination of the judgment In adition to the above maimbered legislative measures, a translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.government.bg/ The translation of the judgment will be simte to the competint scurts (first instance and Courts of appeal) through a circular letter drawing their atention on the main conclusions of the ECHREMS judgment. 3.2. Violations of Article 6 § 1 and 13 The remaining incalcing incalcarile de la articolele 6 alineatul (1) si 13 din Conventie, cu privire la length of the civil proceedings to which the aplicant was a party and the lack of efectiv remedies in that remedies, are similar to the ones examined in the Djangozov group of cases. În timp ce circular letter, Bulgarian authorities will draw the domestic pendins affair to the necessity to conduct with particular diligence and promptness procesing which as child custody or contact rights, as required by the European Court as case-law. 4. Concluzii In concluzie the government considers that the general measures will prevent new similarar încălcăris and that Bulgaria have compliment with its obligation under 46 §1 of the convention. The government prin urmare looks forward to the Committee Adoptată de Comitetul miniștrilor la 6 decembrie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1157-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)153

[1]

Mincheva contre Bulgarie

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

(Requête n

o

21558/03, arrêt du 02/09/2010, définitif le 02/12/2009)

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

DH-DD(2012)916E

)

[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] ou [et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (voir document

DH-DD(2012)916E

)

;

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

Case Mincheva v. Bulgaria, Application No 21558/03

Judgment of 02 September 2010, Final on 02 December 2010

The case relates to the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning the custody of the applicant’s son (violation of Art. 6 § 1) and lack of effective remedy in this respect (violation of Art. 13). It concerns also the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life due to the authorities’ failure to take the necessary practical measures to enforce the applicant’s contact rights (between 1997 and 2003) which had been granted to her by a final judicial decision (violation of Art. 8).

The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicant’s account on 02.03.2011.

After 2003 the violation of the applicant’s right to family life apparently ceased as the applicant established a regular contact with her son (as noted in § 41 of the Court’s judgment). In any event the boy is already of age (he was born in 1990) so no measures on the part of the authorities concerning the contacts with his mother are any longer required.

No further individual measures are necessary for execution of the judgment.

3.1 Violation of Article 8

a) legislative measures

The violation of Article 8 resulted from the relevant legislation in force at the time (Code of Civil Procedure of 1952), which did not allow the body responsible for the execution of contact rights to take practical measures in order to overcome the refusal of one of the parents to allow the other parent to meet the child. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 allowed only the imposition of fines.

The legislation criticized in the European Court’s judgment has been repealed and replaced by a new Code of Civil Procedure which entered into force in 2008 and a new Family Code which entered into force in 2009.

The current domestic legal framework concerning execution of contact rights is provided in Articles 323, 527 and 528 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as in Article 59 of the Family Code and Article 23 (6) of the Law for the Protection of the Child.

According to Article 323 §1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, parties in divorce proceedings can request temporary measures regarding the care of the children and their maintenance. The request for temporary measures shall be examined either immediately or within two weeks after the hearing at which it has been submitted. The court’s ruling is not subject to appeal, but it can be amended by the same court.

According to Article 528 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, the body responsible for the execution of a judgment concerning child custody or contact rights can seek the assistance of the police and the social services, in addition to imposing fines on the non-complying party.

According to Article 59, §§ 8 and 9 of the Family Code, the court in divorce proceedings can also take measures aimed at the protection of the child, such as the obligation for a parent to meet a child in the presence of the other parent or a third person or the obligation to meet the child at a particular place. Such measures can be taken also after the end of the divorce proceedings.

Finally, under Article 23 (6) of the Child Protection Act, the social services can take measures aimed at facilitating the contacts between children and parents.

b) publication and dissemination of the judgment

In addition to the above – mentioned legislative measures, a translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of Justice website at

http://www.justice.government.bg/

The translation of the judgment will be sent to the competent courts (first instance and Courts of appeal) through a circular letter drawing their attention on the main conclusions of the ECHR’s judgment.

3.2. Violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13

The remaining violations – of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, concerning the length of the civil proceedings to which the applicant was a party and the lack of effective remedies in that regard, are similar to the ones examined in the Djangozov group of cases.

In their circular letter, the Bulgarian authorities will draw the domestic courts’ attention to the necessity to conduct with particular diligence and promptness proceedings which concern child custody or contact rights, as required by the European Court’s case-law.

In conclusion the government considers that the general measures will prevent new similar violations and that Bulgaria have complied with its obligation under 46 §1 of the Convention. The government therefore looks forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.

[1]

Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.

[2]

En anglais uniquement