AFFAIRE BOYCHEV ET AUTRES CONTRE LA BULGARIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012) 1669 [1] Boychev și alții împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (solicitarea nr. 77185/01, Hotărârea din 27/01/2011, definitivă la 27/04/2011) 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 încălcările constatate (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)1058E [2] prin care se 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(2012)1058E SÕ, asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1); DECLAMENTUL pe care și l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d.n.: examinarea. ACȚIUNE REPORT Case Boychev and others v. Bulgaria Application 77185/01, Judgment of 27/01/2011, Final on 27/04/2011 Convention violation found Această rubrică se referă la interference with the right of the aplicants (fol flowers of the Unification Church founded by Sun Myung Moon) to manifest their religie due to the întrerupere of a religious mieting in 1997 and to the search and seisure of documents and other items conducted by the police in the absence of legal bazis in domestic law mieting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention (violation of Article 9). It also privices the lack of efectiv remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 9). Individual measures a) The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicants According to the most recent information we have from the Blagoevgrad District Court the applicants did not avail themselves of the possibility to request the remaining 16d objects (books and video recordings) after April 2001 (when was delivered the last instance pended in their case at domestic level). No individual measures seem to be apte in this case General Measures legislative measures and currentjudicial Practice According to the Court as judgment, at the time the public prosecutor had under Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an almost unrestricted discretionary power, a situation which was incompatibil with the minim degree of protection required by the rule of law. Secondly, Bulgarian law was unclear as to the possibility of holding a religious mieting when the organization in question had not been registered (there was a discrepancy between law and Practice, so that that the aplicants could not have known what conduct to adoption). The interference in had thus lacked legal bazis meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the convention. art. 185 din Codul Criminal Procedure which se referă la obligația pentru prosecutors to take Measures in order to prevent a crime has been revoked in 2003. Latter, in 2005 a new Code of Criminal Procedure has been adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament which does not contain such provision. On the other hand, in a judgment of May 2001, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmăd its stance that religious asociations do not need to be registered in order to hold religious mietings (see § 34 of the Boychev Judgment). Finally, a new Religious Denominations Act has been adopted which provides that a judicial body - the Sofia City Court - and no longer the executive, is competent to register religious comuneities wishing to obtain legal personality. The current legal framework is in full compliment with the requirements of the convention. Privind încălcarea articolului 13 din Convenție, authorities consider that following to changes in the legislative framework and Practice presented above and the conclusion in the judged given by the European Court, the domestic Courts will not fail to comply with the Convention requirements while examining similar complaints in the viitor. (b) publicarea și disecția de text al traducerii de lege va fi available soon on the Ministry of Justice Website at www.justice.government.bg/The translation of the judgment will be miros to the competent national authorities. No other measures innc. any legislative amendments seem to be necessary for execution of the judgment. [1] 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)169

[1]

Boychev et autres contre Bulgarie

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

(Requête n

o

77185/01, arrêt du 27/01/2011, définitif le 27/04/2011)

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 les violations constatées (voir document

DH-DD(2012)1058E

)

[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

DH-DD(2012)1058E

)

;

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

Boychev and others v. Bulgaria

Application

No

77185/01, Judgment of 27/01/2011, Final on 27/04/2011

Convention violation found

This case concerns the interference with the right of the applicants (followers of the Unification Church founded by Sun Myung Moon) to manifest their religion due to the interruption of a religious meeting in 1997 and to the search and seisure of documents and other items conducted by the police in the absence of legal basis in domestic law meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention (violation of Article 9). It also concerns the lack of effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article

9).

Individual measures

a) The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicants’ account on 06.07.2011.

b) The case concerns the police intervention at a religious meeting on 6 April 1997 of the applicants’ organization.

According to the most recent information we have from the Blagoevgrad District Court the applicants did not avail themselves of the possibility to request the restitution of the remaining seized objects (books and video recordings) after April 2001 (when was delivered the last instance court’s decision in their case at domestic level).

No individual measures seem to be appropriate in this case

General measures

a)

legislative measures and current judicial practice

According to the Court’s judgment, at the relevant time the public prosecutor had under Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an almost unrestricted discretionary power, a situation which was incompatible with the minimum degree of protection required by the rule of law.

Secondly, Bulgarian law was unclear as to the possibility of holding a religious meeting when the organisation in question had not been registered (there was a discrepancy between law and practice, so that the applicants could not have known what conduct to adopt). The interference in question had thus lacked legal basis meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention.

Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which concerned the obligation for prosecutors to take measures in order to prevent a crime has been revoked in 2003. Latter, in 2005 a new Code of Criminal Procedure has been adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament which does not contain such provision.

On the other hand, in a judgment of May 2001, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed its stance that religious associations do not need to be registered in order to hold religious meetings (see § 34 of the Boychev judgment).

Finally, a new Religious Denominations Act has been adopted which provides that a judicial body - the Sofia City Court - and no longer the executive, is competent to register religious communities wishing to obtain legal personality.

The current legal framework is in full compliance with the requirements of the Convention.

As regards the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the authorities consider that following to changes in the legislative framework and practice presented above and the conclusions in the judgment delivered given by the European Court, the domestic courts will not fail to comply with the Convention requirements while examining similar complaints in the future.

b) publication and dissemination of the judgment

The translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of justice website at

www.justice.government.bg/

The translation of the judgment will be sent to the competent national authorities.

No other measures inc. any legislative amendments seem to be necessary for execution of the judgment.

[1]

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

[2]

En anglais uniquement