AFFAIRE BLOCK CONTRE LA HONGRIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)190 [1] Block împotriva Ungariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (solicitarea nr. 56282/09, Hotărârea din 25/01/2011, definitivă la 25/04/2011) 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 încălcarea constatată (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)1057E 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 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)1057E FISC, asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1); DECLAMENTUL CHIIL și-a îndeplinit atribuțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție în acest caz și DECIDE d Încălcarea dreptului de a face fair trial, is right to be informad in detail of the nature and cause of the applicanthim and is right to have adequat time and facilities for the preparation of his defence [art. 6 alineatul (1) injunction with Article 6 alineatul (3) (a) + (b) ]. The Budapest Appeal Court (in October 2007) and the Supreme Court (in April 2009) both re charactesed the office for which the aplicant had been found guilty without giving him the possibility to readjust his defence." I. Individual Measures Justice rewarded to the aplicant was paid on 7 July 2011 (moraly damage 5000 €, costs and expenses 600 €, 1524843 HUFF). În cazul în care statul membru în cauză nu este de acord cu decizia sa de inițiere a procedurii, aceasta trebuie să fie considerată ca fiind o măsură de ajutor de stat în sensul articolului 107 alineatul (1) din TFUE. By the judgment of Budapest Regional Court of Appeal of 10 October 2007 (No. Bf. 62/2007/21.) the applicant was convicted of fierry of public documents and sendd to a fil. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment on 30 April 2009 (No. Bfv.II.835/2008/12.) The Government simte judgment of the ECHR to the Chief Public Prosecutor affice in order to initiate the reopening of the criminal procesedings under Section 416 of the Code on Criminal Procedure. According to the information given by the Chief Public Prosecutor affice on 7 September 2011, the Office submitted a motion for reopening to the Supreme Court. The applicant also had the oportunity to submit his submissions, but he did not do it. on 23 November 2011 the Supreme upheld the consusion by the Budapest Regional Court of Appeal Electroluxs judgment of 10 October 2007 - No. 3.Bf.62/2007/21 - but re characterised the offence as fierry of public documents. The judgment became final on 23 November 2011. II. General Measures Publication and disemination The judgment was translated and the Hungarian version was publicityshed on the website of the Government (www.kormany.hu). The Government also mirose the judgment to the Office of the National Judicial Council in order to information the scurts about the content of the judgment and to take due account of the findings of the judgment in their viitoare practice. III. Concluzii ale respondent state the Government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consecinces for the aplicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case, and that Hungary has compliment with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention. Budapest, 31 October 2012 Zoltán Tallódi Agent of the Government of Hungary [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)190

[1]

Block contre Hongrie

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

(Requête n

o

56282/09, arrêt du 25/01/2011, définitif le 25/04/2011)

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 la violation constatée (voir document

DH-DD(2012)1057E

)

;

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)1057E

)

;

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.

Final Action Report of 31 October 2012, Appl. No. 56282/09

Block, judgment of 25/01/2011 (Revised)

[2]

Introductory case summary

Violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, his right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (a) + (b)). The Budapest Appeal Court (in October 2007) and the Supreme Court (in April 2009) both re characterised the offence for which the applicant had been found guilty without giving him the possibility to readjust his defence."

I. Individual measures

Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicant was paid on 7 July 2011 (non-pecuniary damage 5000 €, costs and expenses 600 €, 1524843 HUF).

Where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirements of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation (see § 29 of the Court’s judgment)".

By the judgment of Budapest Regional Court of Appeal of 10 October 2007 (No. Bf. 62/2007/21.) the applicant was convicted of forgery of public documents and sentenced to a fine. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment on 30 April 2009 (No. Bfv.II.835/2008/12.)

The Government sent the judgment of the ECHR to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to initiate the reopening of the criminal proceedings under Section 416 of the Code on Criminal Procedure. According to the information given by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on 7 September 2011, the Office submitted a motion for reopening to the Supreme Court. The applicant also had the opportunity to submit his submissions, but he did not do it. On 23 November 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction by the Budapest Regional Court of Appeal’s judgment of 10 October 2007 - No. 3.Bf.62/2007/21 - but re

‑

characterised the offence as forgery of public documents.

The judgment became final on 23 November 2011.

II. General measures

Publication and dissemination

The judgment was translated and the Hungarian version was published on the website of the Government (www.kormany.hu).

The Government also sent the judgment to the Office of the National Judicial Council in order to inform the courts about the content of the judgment and to take due account of the findings of the judgment in their future practice.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case, and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Budapest, 31 October 2012

Zoltán Tallódi

Agent of the Government of Hungary

[1]

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

[2]

En anglais seulement.