AFFAIRE R.H. CONTRE LA FINLANDE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012) 1772 [1] R.H. împotriva Finlandei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 34165/05, Hotărârea din 2 iunie 2009, definitivă la 2 septembrie 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 încălcarea constatată (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)1041E [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)1041E S DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE-DEDĂ-LE ÎN ACEASTA. ACȚIUNE REPORT ON THE EXECUȚIE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPAAN CURTE OF HUMAN RIGHTS Respondent State Finland Application nr. 34165/05 Name R.H. Judgement 02/06/2009 Final 02/09/2009 Violență of the Convention Caseta referitoare la unfairness of criminal procesion against the applicant in 2002 as the Appeal Court failed to make a full examination of the case or to organiza an oral hearing, but used instead a so-called The European Court found that in the circumstances of the case, the creditity of the statistics of the persons involved could not have been properly determined by the Appeal Court without a direct assessment of such evidence. Tip Leading case. Individual Measures Justice The European Court awarded the aplicant just satisfaction with respect to moraly damage. Other measures Re-opening of domestic proceedings is available under the Finnish legislation (Cadrul 31, Secțiunile 1 și 2 din Codul Judiciar Procedure). Consequently, no other individual measure is considered necessary. General Measures Under Chapter 26, Secțiunea 15, of the Code on Judicial Procedure, the Appeal Court shall shall an oral hearing if the creditity of the testimony admitted in the District Court is an is an issue (see §34 of the European Court. The violation in this case arose from an izolated decision of the Court of Appeal to application the filtering procesures and to reject the request for an orale hearing (see § 11 of the judgment). Publication and dissemination In view of the directeffect of the Convention and its case-law in Finnish legal system, the publicity and disemination of the European Court Judgment has been diseminated to the Oulu District Court, the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, as well as to the Parliamentary Umbudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, and the Ministry of the Interior. The summary of the judgement has been publicished on the Government as website on national legislation and case law (www.finlex.fi) in Finnish. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs publicsshed a press releases sursing the judgment on same the day as the judgment was delivered. Governments concluzie The Measures adoptăd are apt of preventing similarar încălcări. Finland has thus commed with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the convention. [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)172

[1]

R.H. contre Finlande

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

(Requête n

o

34165/05, arrêt du 2 juin 2009, définitif le 2 septembre 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 la violation constatée (voir document

DH-DD(2012)1041E

)

[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)1041E

)

;

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 JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Respondent State

Finland

Application no.

34165/05

Name

R.H.

Judgement

02/06/2009

Final

02/09/2009

Violation of the Convention

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant in 2002–2004, as the Appeal Court failed to make a full examination of the case or to organise an oral hearing, but used instead a so-called «filtering procedure» based on Chapter 26, sections 2 and 2a of the Code of Judicial Procedure (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that in the circumstances of the case, the credibility of the statements of the persons involved could not have been properly determined by the Appeal Court without a direct assessment of such evidence.

Type

Leading case.

Individual measures

Just satisfaction

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction with respect to non-pecuniary damage.

Other measures

Re-opening of domestic proceedings is available under the Finnish legislation (Chapter 31, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure). Consequently, no other individual measure is considered necessary.

General measures

Under Chapter 26, Section 15, of the Code on Judicial Procedure, the Appeal Court shall hold an oral hearing if the credibility of the testimony admitted in the

District Court is an issue (see §34 of the European Court’s judgment). The violation in this case arose from an isolated decision of the Court of Appeal to apply the filtering procedure and to reject the request for an oral hearing (see § 11 of the judgment).

Publication and dissemination

In view of the direct effect of the Convention and its case-law in Finnish legal system, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all judicial authorities are sufficient to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment has been disseminated to the Oulu District Court, the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, and the Ministry of the Interior.

The summary of the judgement has been published on the Government’s website on national legislation and case law (www.finlex.fi) in Finnish. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs published a press release concerning the judgment on same the day as the judgment was delivered.

Government’s conclusion

The measures adopted are capable of preventing similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1]

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

[2]

En anglais uniquement