Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)129 [1] Lalmahomed împotriva Țărilor de Jos Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Cercetarea nr. 26036/08, Hotărârea din 22/02/2011, definitivă la 22/05/2011) 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) 740E [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 ; și 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 și în care se menționează că a fost acordată o satisfacție echitabilă de către Curte în prezenta cauză (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012) 740E) ; având în vedere faptul că au fost adoptate toate măsurile impuse prin 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.l. Action Report of the Government of the Netherlands on the implementation of the judgment of the ECTHR in the case of LALMAHOMED v. the Netherlands Application nr. 26036/08, Judgment of 22 February 2011, Final 22 May 2011 Introducere On 2 June 2008 Dl Goelzeer Lalmahomed ( mai mult decât atât) submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (dl Goelzeer Lalmahomed) under Article 34 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( On 22 February 2011 the Court found there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. In acordance with the standard classification procedure,1 the Government of the Netherlands wishes to present its action report, with a view to closure of the case by the Committee of Ministers. Case description Încălcarea applicant as right to a fair trial on account of thefact that the single-judge chamber of the Court of Appeal sitting as the President refuzd refuzd ime leave to appeal, holding that the grounds for appeal were implacable, without having a full and thorough evaluation of the relevant factors (violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (c) Individual measures The Government of the Netherlands has not taken any aditival measures following the Court The applicant has the possibility to file an application for a retrial with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of the Netherlands (art. 457, paragraph 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering)). Acording to article 458, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an application for a retrial should be filed with the Supreme Court within three months after the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The aplicant has not filed such an application within that time limitat. General Measures The Dutch authorities consider that, given the directeffect of the Court. To this end, the judgment and comment on the judgment have been publicished in several Dutch legal jurnals, inclusiv Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB 2011, nr. 858), T. de Roos in European Human Rights Cases (HRC 2011, 5, p. 878-879, M. de Werd Furtermore, by letter of 1 September 2011, the Minister of Security and Justice brought the judgment to the atention of the carne of the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak). In his letter, the Minister pointed out that, in anumite rubrici, a more proactive investitive stance is necessary on the part of the Court hearing an application for leave to appeal. The Minister also asked the carne to bring his letter to the atention of the National Consultative Committee of Criminal Law Sector Chairpersons (Landelijk Overleg Voorzitters Strafsectoren). Payment of Just satisfaction The applicant has submitted no claim for just satisfaction. Concluzie The Government of the Netherlands believes that measures taken have foulied the requirements that arise from the Court
Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)129
[1]
Lalmahomed contre Pays-Bas
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête n
o
26036/08, arrêt du 22/02/2011, définitif le 22/05/2011)
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 of the Government of the Netherlands
on the implementation of the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of LALMAHOMED
v. the Netherlands
Application no. 26036/08, Judgment of 22 February 2011, Final 22 May 2011
Introduction
On 2 June 2008 Mr Goelzeer Lalmahomed (‘the applicant’) submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) under Article 34 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’).
On 22 February 2011 the Court found there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. In accordance with the standard classification procedure,1 the Government of the Netherlands wishes to present its action report, with a view to closure of the case by the Committee of Ministers.
Case description
Violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the fact that the single-judge chamber of the Court of Appeal sitting as the President refused him leave to appeal, holding that the grounds for appeal were implausible, without having a full and thorough evaluation of the relevant factors (violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (c)).
Individual measures
The Government of the Netherlands has not taken any additional individual measures following the Court’s judgment since the applicant is no longer suffering any consequences of the violation.
The applicant has the possibility to file an application for a retrial with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of the Netherlands (article 457, paragraph 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering)). According to article 458, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an application for a retrial should be filed with the Supreme Court within three months after the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant has not filed such an application within that time limit.
General measures
The Dutch authorities consider that, given the direct effect of the Court’s judgments in the Netherlands, all authorities concerned are expected to align their practice with the present judgment. To this end, the judgment and commentary on the judgment have been published in several Dutch legal journals, including Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB 2011, no. 858), T. de Roos in European Human Rights Cases (EHRC 2011, 5, p. 878-879), M. de Werd ‘Verlof in 1 As set out in CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 and CM/Inf/DH(2010)37E strafzaken’ in het Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten (NTM 2011, p. 575-583), T. de Roos in Strafblad (2011, p.
7-10) and L. van Lent in Delikt en Delinkwent (2011/50).
Furthermore, by letter of 1 September 2011, the Minister of Security and Justice brought the judgment to the attention of the chair of the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak). In his letter, the Minister pointed out that, in certain cases, a more proactive investigative stance is necessary on the part of the court hearing an application for leave to appeal. The Minister also asked the chair to bring his letter to the attention of the National Consultative Committee of Criminal Law Sector Chairpersons (Landelijk Overleg Voorzitters
Strafsectoren).
Payment of Just satisfaction
The applicant has submitted no claim for just satisfaction.
Conclusion
The Government of the Netherlands believes that the measures taken have fulfilled the requirements that arise from the Court’s judgment and that as a result, similar violations in the future will be prevented.
The Hague, 6 August 2012
[1]
Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 26 septembre 2012 lors de la 1150e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2]
Uniquement en anglais