AFFAIRE SUURIPAA CONTRE LA FINLANDE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)23 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Suuripć împotriva Finlandei Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede faptul 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 Definitive Le Suurip 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 DH-DD(2012)189 [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că Statul pârât a plătit părții reclamante satisfacția echitabilă prevăzută în hotărârea; DECLUSIV că și-a îndeplinit funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE DECIDE DECUDE DECURS LA INVESTIGARE. ACȚIUNE REPORT / ACȚIUNE PLANTĂ ON THE EXECUȚIE OF THE EUROPEAN CURTE OF HUMAN RIGHTS Suurips aguist Finland Cererea nr. 43151/02, Judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010 Violență of the Convention Art. 6 Right to a fair trial. In the criminal proceedings against the aplicant, the Supreme Court on 13 June 2002 reversed the lower pendices judgment to his disadvantage without holding an oral hearing. (§§ 47and 48 of the judgment) Art. 6 § 1 Excesive length of criminal proceedings, three years and eleven months at two levels of jurisdiction (8 July 1998 mai 2002) Tip Leading case. Individual measures Justice satisfaction Justice, in total EUR 8.750, has been paid by the Government. See the document țarsed. Other Measures Further, re-opening of criminal proceedings este posibil să fie under the national law. No other individual measures are necessary. General Measures In general, the Supreme Court has the possibility to hold a hearing: under Chapter 30, section 20, subsecțiunea 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the Supreme Court shall hold a hearing where necessary (see §27 of the judgment). 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 disseminated to the Helsinki Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, aswell 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, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Finance. In relation to the încălcarea referenging the excesiv length of criminal procesion, see Kangasluoma v Finland 48339/99). The summary of the judgement has been publicshed on the Government 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)23

[1]

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

Suuripää 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

Suuripää (43151/02)

12/01/2010

12/04/2010

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-DD(2012)189

[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.

ACTION REPORT / ACTION PLAN

ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Suuripää against Finland

Application No. 43151/02, Judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010

Violation of the

Convention

Art. 6

Right to a fair trial.

In the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Supreme Court on 13

June 2002 reversed the lower court’s judgment to his disadvantage without

holding an oral hearing. (§§ 47and 48 of the judgment)

Art. 6 § 1

Excessive length of criminal proceedings, three years and eleven months at two levels of jurisdiction (8 July 1998 – 13 June 2002)

Type

Leading case.

Individual measures

Just satisfaction

1.

Just satisfaction, in total EUR 8.750, has been paid by the Government. See the document enclosed. Other measures

2.

The proceedings in issue are now closed. Further, the re-opening of criminal proceedings is possible under the national law. No other individual measures are necessary.

General measures

3.

In general, the Supreme Court has the possibility to hold a hearing: under Chapter 30, section 20, subsection 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the Supreme Court shall hold a hearing where necessary (see §27 of the judgment). The violation arose from an isolated decision by the Supreme Court not to hold a hearing in this case.

4.

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 useful to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment has been disseminated to the Helsinki 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, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Finance.

5.

In relation to the violation concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, see Kangasluoma v Finland 48339/99).

6.

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 also gave a press release on the case the same day the judgement was issued.

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