Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)168 [1] Zdravko Petrov împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 20024/04, Hotărârea din 23/06/2011, definitivă la 23/09/2011) 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)1059E [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 ce a examinat bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern indicând măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii și notând că: nu a fost acordată nici o satisfacție echitabilă în prezenta cauză (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)1059E S DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d The Court saw no justification for the competent authorities. in particularity, the Court considered that the aplicant should not have been required to prove to the authorijos satisfaction that the above-mented documents had been specialally requested by the Courts Registry. Therefore, the Court conclused that the authorities had interfered unjustificiably with the applicicants right of individual micion and had had thus failed to comply with their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention not to hinder the efectiv exercise of this right. The complaints under articol 6 of the Convention were declarad neadmisible. Individual measures An amount of just satisfaction has not been awarded by the Court, as the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in proper form. Therefore, no individual measures seem necessary. General Measures The Government considers that the violation of Article 34 of the Convention found in this case is an izolated one. Therefore, a letter with concrete puncting the interpretation and the application of Article 34 of the Convention priving the efectiv joyment of the right to pure and present a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights was miros to the president of the curte directly send by the present case (The Ruse Regional Court). The translation of the judgment will available soon and will be publicished on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.justice.government.bg . It will be disseminated with circular letter to the interested stakeholders. The Government considers that no further general measures are necessary at național level. Concluzii In view of the foregoing the government considers to have compliment with its obligation under art. 46 §1 of the convention. Thus we are looking forward to the Committee
Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)168
[1]
Zdravko Petrov contre Bulgarie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête n
o
20024/04, arrêt du 23/06/2011, définitif le 23/09/2011)
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
)
[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 et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (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.
Action report on the execution of the judgment Zdravko Petrov v. Bulgaria
(no. 20024/04)
Delivered on 23/06/2011
Final on 23/09/2011
This case concerns the failure of the state to comply with its obligations under article 34 of the Convention. The Court saw no justification for the competent authorities’ refusal to provide the applicant with copies of documents related to criminal proceedings against him. In particular, the Court considered that the applicant should not have been required to prove to the authorities’ satisfaction that the above-mentioned documents had been specifically requested by the Court’s Registry. Therefore, the Court concluded that the authorities had interfered unjustifiably with the applicant’s right of individual petition and had thus failed to comply with their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention not to hinder the effective exercise of this right.
The complaints under article 6 of the Convention were declared inadmissible.
Individual measures
:
An amount of just satisfaction has not been awarded by the Court, as the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in proper form. Therefore, no individual measures seem necessary.
General measures
The Government considers that the violation of Article 34 of the Convention found in this case is an isolated one.
Therefore, a letter with concrete points concerning the interpretation and the application of Article 34 of the Convention concerning the effective enjoyment of the right to pursue and present a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights was sent to the president of the court directly concerned by the present case (the Ruse Regional Court). This measure would prevent any future infringements of similar nature.
The translation of the judgment will be available soon and will be published on the website of the Ministry of justice
www.justice.government.bg
. It will be disseminated with circular letter to the interested stakeholders.
The Government considers that no further general measures are necessary at national level.
Conclusions
In view of the foregoing the government considers to have complied with its obligation under article 46 §1 of the Convention. Thus we are looking forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.
Sofia, 12 September 2012
[1]
Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2]
En anglais uniquement