AFFAIRE STAVEBNÁ SPOLOČNOSŤ TATRY POPRAD, S.R.O. CONTRE LA SLOVAQUIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)21 [1] Stavebna spolochnost Tatry Poprad împotriva Republicii Slovace executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 7261/06, Hotărârea din 3 mai 2011, definitivă la 3 august 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 încălcarea constatată (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)782E reamintind obligația de a se pronunța, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. (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 ce a examinat bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern indicând măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii și notând că: nu s-a acordat nici o satisfacție echitabilă în prezenta cauză (a se vedea documentul (DH-DD(2012)782E SÕ, asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile cerute de art. 46 alineatul (1); DECLAMENTUL CHIIL și-a îndeplinit funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d Caseta referitoare la încălcări ale dreptului de a introduce o cale de atac în fața Constituțional Court în 2005 rejected the applicant company as appleal as having been introduced outside the statutory time-limit and thus exclusded from its review a part of the aplicant company mais argumenting the evidence put before the ordinary Courts in order to challenge the validity of a construction contract between the applicant company and another company (violation of Article 6 § 1). I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures As no just satisfaction claims were submitted by the aplicant company within the given time-limit, the Court made no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see § 56 of the judgment). Principle of legal certy means that it would not be apted to reopen litigation procesion at the national level, where this would afect the rights of third parts which were acquired in good faith (third partis in respect of the procedure before the European Court). The Government also note that the violation of Article 6§1 was limit to a question of damages, which the aplicant had the oportunity to claim before the European Court. In concluzie, the authorities consider that no other individual measure appears necessary. II. General Measures a) Publication and dissemination The judgment was publicished in the Judicial Review (Jusicna Review) ) No. 10/2011. The judgment was simte to the President of the Constitutional Court with the request to notify all the constitutional judge thereof. b) Practice of the Constitutional Court the current Practice of the Constitutional Court is now in line with the Concluziile of the European Court in this judgment, as to the right to a scurt. The Constitutional Court in its decisions of 2010 - 2011 frequently declarad the view that in case of concurent lodging of the appeal on points of law and the constitutional complaint, the constitutional complaint is admis only after the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal on points of law. However, The statutory time-limit for lodging of the constitutional complaint is considered to be preserved not only in respect of the decision on appeal on points of law but also in respect of the previous decision against which the appeal on points of law has been lodged (see e.g. I. US 169/09, I. US 55/2011, I. US 84/2010, I. US 153/2010, Ill. US 200/2010, Ill. US 114/2010, II. US 443/2011, II. US 192/2011, Ill. US 369/2011, I. US 275/2011 sau Ill. US 57/2011). Consequently, similarar încălcări Should not ocur in the viitor. In concluzie, the authorities consider that no other general measure appears necessary. Il. Concluzii of the responce state state The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus compliment with its under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention. In Bratislava, 20 iunie 2012 Marica Pirosikova Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 6 decembrie 2012 în cadrul celei de a 1157-a reuniuni a Delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)221

[1]

Stavebna spolochnost Tatry Poprad contre République slovaque

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

(Requête n

o

7261/06, arrêt du 3 mai 2011, définitif le 3 août 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 la violation constatée (voir document

DH-DD(2012)782E

)

;

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

DH-DD(2012)782E

)

;

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

[2]

App.No.7261/06

Stavebna spolocnost’ Tatry Poprad, s.r.o. v.Slovakia,

judgment of 03/05/2011,final on 03/08/2011

Introductory case summary

The case concerns violation of the applicant company’s right to a court as the Constitutional Court in 2005 rejected the applicant company’s appeal as having been introduced outside the statutory time-limit and thus excluded from its review a part of the applicant company’s arguments concerning the evidence put before the ordinary courts in order to challenge the validity of a construction contract between the applicant company and another company (violation of Article 6 § 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

As no just satisfaction claims were submitted by the applicant company within the given time-limit, the Court made no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see § 56 of the judgment).

The principle of legal certainty means that it would not be appropriate to reopen litigation proceedings at the national level, where this would affect the rights of third parties which were acquired in good faith (third parties in respect of the procedure before the European Court).

The Government also note that the violation of Article 6§1 was limited to a question of damages, which the applicant had the opportunity to claim before the European Court.

In conclusion, the authorities consider that no other individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

a) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (

Justicna Revue

) No. 10/2011. The judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court with the request to notify all the constitutional judges thereof.

b) Practice of the Constitutional Court

The current practice of the Constitutional Court is now in line with the conclusions of the European Court in this judgment, as to the right to a court. The Constitutional Court in its decisions of 2010 - 2011 frequently declared the view that in case of concurrent lodging of the appeal on points of law and the constitutional complaint, the constitutional complaint is admissible only after the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal on points of law. However,

the statutory time-limit for lodging of the constitutional complaint is considered to be preserved not only in respect of the decision on appeal on points of law but also in respect of the previous decision against which the appeal on points of law has been lodged

(see e.g. I. US 169/09, I. US 55/2011, I. US 84/2010, I. US 153/2010, Ill. US 200/2010, Ill. US 114/2010, II. US 443/2011, II. US 192/2011, Ill. US 369/2011, I. US 275/2011 or Ill. US 57/2011). Consequently, similar violations should not occur in the future.

In conclusion, the authorities consider that no other general measure appears necessary.

Ill. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 20 June 2012

Marica Pirosikova

Agent of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

[1]

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

[2]

En anglais uniquement.