AFFAIRE BORISOVA CONTRE LA BULGARIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)158 [1] Borisova împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 56891/00, Hotărârea din 21 decembrie 2006, definitivă la 21 martie 2007) 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) (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 intergrom ; și măsuri generale pentru prevenirea unor încălcări similare ; invitând guvernul de la național 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(2012) DECLAMENTUL pe care și l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d'en . Action report Case of Borisova v. Bulgaria, aplicarea nr. 56891/00, judgment of 21 decembrie 2006, final on 21 March 2007 The present case privitoare la o încălcare a regulilor de aplicare a legii în vigoare a articolului 6 alineatul (1) și a articolului 3 litera (a), (b) și (d) taken together, in the context of procesion under the Degree on Combating Minor Hooliganism in 1999, as are result of which the aplicant was sended to a 5-day arrest. The Court based its finding of a violation on the following consideations: Applicant ha not been promptly and in detail informad of the nature and caus of the acuzation against her and had not had adequat time and facilities for the preparation of her defence. The applicant was arrrested in the morning of 08/09/99, after allegedly having hit a police office, and brought to a court after about two hours, which she spenter either in tranzit to the court or detained in a cell at the police station. The applicant was not given an oportunity to contact a lawyer or a relative prior to the start of the proceseedings. The Court hearing lasted about 20 minutes and the judgment given at its close was not subject to appeal. In addition, the aplicant claimed that she had been unaware of the upcoming process against her and had only been informed of the acuzations just before being presented for trial. The applicant could not obtain the asistance and examination of witnesses on her behalf, even though she stated on several opportunis during the court hearing that she wished to call witnesses. Infact, only witnesses for the prosecution were heard, which, in the European Court The European Court awarded to the aplicant EUR 2,000 for moraly damage arising from the unfair proceseedings against her which had resulted in a 5-day detention. The Government paid the sum on 19 September 2007 (the aplicant stated that she would not seek interest). The applicant has served the 5-day sendsion and has been released. The convingere has not been entered into her criminal record (§ 26 of the judgment). The Government is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consecvences of the violation of the applicicants rights. 2) GENERAL MEASSURI The Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism was adopted in 1963 and amended on numerous subsequent oportunitate. It covers minor offences of huliganism which are pedepsitable with an administrativ sanction of up to fifteen days at police station or a fil. Procesul este expeditious: acuzațiile sunt pentru a fi luate în considerare cu acest interval de timp cu 24 de ore following discovery of the offence and the court is to decide in another 24 hours. The European Court has noted that the use of such expeditious procedures is not in itself contrary to Article 6, as as as the necessary safeguards and guarantees have been provided for (§ 40 of the judgment). The Bulgarian Government is of the view that after the latest amendments of November 2011 the Decree provides for those safeguards and guarantees. Mult mai important, aceaceasta este o situație actuală în care administrația a decis să acționeze și să pună în aplicare legislația este necesară pentru a fi aplicată în cadrul procedurilor care urmează a fi adoptate pe baza unei subsidiary bazis. Această lege, which, on its turn, refers on a subsidiary bazis to the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for all the necessary guarantees of fair trial in proceseding administrative offences, such as the rights to efectiv defence, to legal asistence, to present evidence and to equality of arms. The Government considers that the expeditious character of the proceseedings under the Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism is not in principle incompatibile cu these guarantees. În plus, it is now provided that first- instance decisions under the Decree can be appealed against before the respective regional scurt (this was not previously the case, see Õ 25 of the judgment), which is an additional asiguration against unfairness and provides aggrieved parts with a further such to pregere and present their case. The Government is of the view that the legislative amendamentes described above are sucient to ensure that încălcări similare to the ones in the case will not ocur in the viitor. No further general measures are thus necessary. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 6 decembrie 2012 cu ocazia celei de-a 1157-a reuniuni a Delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)158

[1]

Borisova contre Bulgarie

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

(Requête n

o

56891/00, arrêt du 21 décembre 2006, définitif le 21 mars 2007)

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)921E

)

[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 intergrum

; 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

DH-DD(2012)921E

)

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46§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 of Borisova v. Bulgaria, application no. 56891/00, judgment of

21 December 2006, final on 21 March 2007

The present case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b) and (d) taken together, in the context of proceedings under the Degree on Combating Minor Hooliganism in 1999, as a result of which the applicant was sentenced to a 5-day arrest. The Court based its finding of a violation on the following considerations:

-

The applicant had not been promptly and in detail informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her and had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence. The applicant was arrested in the morning of 08/09/1999, after allegedly having hit a police officer, and brought to a court after about two hours, which she spent either in transit to the court or detained in a cell at the police station. The applicant was not given an opportunity to contact a lawyer or a relative prior to the start of the proceedings. The court hearing lasted about 20 minutes and the judgment given at its close was not subject to appeal. In addition, the applicant claimed that she had been unaware of the upcoming proceedings against her and had only been informed of the accusations just before being presented for trial.

-

The applicant could not obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on her behalf, even though she stated on several occasions during the court hearing that she wished to call witnesses. In fact, only witnesses for the prosecution were heard, which, in the European Court’s view, gave the prosecution an unfair advantage.

1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

-

The European Court awarded to the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unfair proceedings against her which had resulted in a 5-day detention. The Government paid the sum on 19 September 2007 (the applicant stated that she would not seek interest).

-

The applicant has served the 5-day sentence and has been released. The conviction has not been entered into her criminal record (§ 26 of the judgment).

The Government is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violation of the applicant’s rights.

2) GENERAL MEASURES

The Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism was adopted in 1963 and amended on numerous subsequent occasions. It covers minor offences of hooliganism which are punishable with an administrative sanction of up to fifteen days’ detention at a police station or a fine. The procedure is expeditious: the accusations are to be filed with the respective court within 24 hours following the discovery of the offence and the court is to decide in another 24 hours. The European Court has noted that the use of such expeditious procedures is not in itself contrary to Article 6, as long as the necessary safeguards and guarantees have been provided for (§ 40 of the judgment).

The Bulgarian Government is of the view that after the latest amendments of November 2011 the Decree provides for those safeguards and guarantees. Most importantly, it is now stipulated that the Administrative Offences and Punishments Act is to be applied to proceedings under the Decree on a subsidiary basis. That Act, which, on its turn, refers on a subsidiary basis to the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for all the necessary guarantees of fair trial in proceedings concerning administrative offences, such as the rights to effective defence, to legal assistance, to present evidence and to equality of arms. The Government considers that the expeditious character of the proceedings under the Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism is not in principle incompatible with these guarantees.

In addition, it is now provided that first-instance decisions under the Decree can be appealed against before the respective regional court (this was not previously the case – see § 25 of the judgment), which is an additional assurance against unfairness and provides aggrieved parties with a further chance to prepare and present their case.

The Government is of the view that the legislative amendments described above are sufficient to ensure that violations similar to the ones in the case will not occur in the future. No further general measures are thus necessary.

[1]

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

[2]

En anglais uniquement