Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)22 [1] Execuția hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Marttinen împotriva Finlandei Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că: Convenția mai jos [2] Având în vedere hotărârea de mai jos, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului odată ce a devenit definitiv Numele cauzei (ref. in) Hotărârea Determinativului Marttinen (19235/03) 21/04/2009 21/07/2009 Reamintind că constatările de încălcare făcute de Curte impun, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate în hotărâri, adoptarea de către statul membru pârât, dacă este necesar, a unor măsuri individuale care să pună capăt încălcărilor și să șteargă, pe cât posibil, consecințele acestora pentru solicitant, precum și măsuri generale care să permită prevenirea unor încălcări similare; După ce a invitat autoritățile din statul membru în cauză să furnizeze un plan de acțiune privind măsurile propuse pentru executarea hotărârii; după examinarea, în conformitate cu normele Comitetului privind aplicarea articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție, a bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern (a se vedea bilanțul de acțiune, documentul DD(2012)188E [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că Statul pârât a plătit părții reclamante satisfacția echitabilă prevăzută în hotărârea pronunțată; DEClARIE că și-a îndeplinit atribuțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d Judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009 Violation of the Convention Art. 6 § 1 Right to a fair trial. In proceseding to reconversion a debt from 2000-2002, the aplicant was fined for refuzing to give an overall account of is asets and other financial means under Chapter 3, secțiunea 34(d) of the Enforcement Act. At the same time the applicant suspected of a tax fraud priving the same assets in other proceedings. The Court found that the determination to ensure the efectivness of debt recovery proceedings could not justify a provision which extinguished the very esence of the applicicants right to tace and not to incriminate himself. Tip Leading case. Individual measures The administrative find ordered by the Helsinki District Court Further, re-opening of proceedings is possible under national law. Consequently, no other measure is considered necessary. General measures Chapter 3 of the Enforcement Act was amended with effect from 1 March 2004 and a new mechanism was introduced prohibiting the use of incriminating information to Circumvent provisions on testiony or have the debtor charged with a criminal office (see §34 and 75 of the judgment). Further, in its precedent of 20 October of 2009, the Supreme Court (KKO: 2009:80) Anuled one of its earlier judgments priving the right not to incriminate oneself. The case did not privice the applicant of the case of Marttinen v. Finland but in its reasoning the Supreme Court refered to the case. According to the precedent, if information about a debtor.s property raports to both a pandaning criminal case and to enforcement or bankruptcy processings where this information is wanted from the debtor with the threat of pedepseshment, the debtor is entitled to refuz to declaration the property. The signance of the information from the standpoint of the debtor In its precedent of 30 June 2010 (KKO: 2010:49), the Supreme Court also referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights Refereng the right to not incriminate oneself, inclusiv the case of Marttinen, as well as to its previous a anulament of a judgment (KKO: 2009:80). A press release was issued the same day as the judgment. Additionally, the judgment of the European Court a simțit out to the național authorities, as well as to the Parliamentary Umbudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgments were publicshed in the legal database Finlex in English, along with summaries in Finnish (www.finlex.fi). The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general Measures adopted will prevent similar încălcări. Finland has thus compliment with its under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the convention. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul miniștrilor la 8 martie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1136-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor. [2] A se vedea, de asemenea, recomandările adoptate de Comitetul miniștrilor în cadrul supravegherii hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului, în special Recomandarea Rec(2004)6 a Comitetului de Miniștri al statelor membre privind îmbunătățirea acțiunilor interne. [3] Numai în limba engleză
Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)22
[1]
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
Marttinen contre Finlande
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
»)
[2]
,
Vu l’arrêt ci-dessous, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité une fois qu’il est devenu définitif
;
Nom de l’affaire (réf. requête)
Arrêt du
Définitif le
Marttinen (19235/03)
21/04/2009
21/07/2009
Rappelant que les constats de violation faits par la Cour exigent, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée dans les arrêts, l’adoption par l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire, de mesures individuelles mettant fin aux violations et effaçant autant que possible les conséquences de celles-ci pour le requérant, et de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité les autorités de l’Etat défendeur à fournir un plan d’action concernant les mesures proposées pour exécuter l’arrêt ;
Ayant examiné, conformément aux Règles du Comité pour l’application de l’article 46, paragraphe
2, de la Convention, le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement (voir le bilan d’action, document
DH
‑
[3]
);
Ayant noté que
l’Etat défendeur a versé à la partie requérante la satisfaction équitable prévue dans l’arrêt ;
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.
Marttinen against Finland
Application No. 19235/03
Judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009
Violation of the
Convention
Art. 6 § 1
Right to a fair trial.
In proceedings to recover a debt from 2000-2002, the applicant was fined for refusing to give an overall account of his assets and other financial means under Chapter 3, section 34(d) of the Enforcement Act. At the same time the applicant suspected of a tax fraud concerning the same assets in other proceedings.
The Court found that the determination to ensure the effectiveness of debt recovery proceedings could not justify a provision which extinguished the very essence of the applicant’s right to silence and not to incriminate himself.
Type
Leading case.
Individual measures
1.
The administrative fine ordered by the Helsinki District Court’s decision from 9 July 2000 was not paid as the bailiff subsequently waived the enforcement inquiry (see §24 of the judgment). The European Court held that the finding of violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage. Further, re-opening of proceedings is possible under national law. Consequently, no other measure is considered necessary.
General measures
2.
Chapter 3 of the Enforcement Act was amended with effect from 1 March 2004 and a new mechanism was introduced prohibiting the use of incriminating information to circumvent provisions on testimony or have the debtor charged with a criminal offence (see §§34 and 75 of the judgment).
3.
Further, in its precedent of 20 October of 2009, the Supreme Court (KKO: 2009:80) annulled one of its earlier judgments concerning the right not to incriminate oneself. The case did not concern the applicant of the case of Marttinen v. Finland but in its reasoning the Supreme Court referred to the case.
4.
According to the precedent, if information about a debtor’s property relates to both a pending criminal case and to enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings where this information is wanted from the debtor with the threat of punishment, the debtor is entitled to refuse to declare the property. The significance of the information from the standpoint of the debtor’s possible guilt is irrelevant.
5.
In its precedent of 30 June 2010 (KKO: 2010:49), the Supreme Court also referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to not incriminate oneself, including the case of Marttinen, as well as to its previous annulment of a judgment (KKO: 2009:80).
6.
A press release was issued the same day as the judgment. Additionally, the judgment of the European Court was sent out to the relevant national authorities, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The judgments were published in the legal database Finlex in English, along with summaries in Finnish (www.finlex.fi).
Conclusion
The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent 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 8 mars 2012 lors de la 1136e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2]
voir aussi les recommandations adoptées par le Comité des Ministres dans le cadre de la supervision des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, et en particulier la Recommandation
Rec(2004)6 du Comité des Ministres aux Etats membres sur l'amélioration des recours internes.
[3]
Document en anglais uniquement