AFFAIRE DMD GROUP, A.S., CONTRE LA REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012) 51 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului DMD group, A.S împotriva Republicii Slovace 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 (denumită în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea") [2] Având în vedere hotărârea de mai jos, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului odată ce a devenit definitiv Numele cauzei (referitor la cerere) Hotărârea Definitivului DMD GROUP, A.S (19334/03) 05/10/2010 05/01/2011 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 pârât să furnizeze un plan de acțiune privind măsurile propuse pentru executarea hotărârii; după ce a examinat, în conformitate cu normele Comitetului privind aplicarea articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție, bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern (a se vedea bilanțul de acțiune, documentul DD(2011) 1150E [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că Statul pârât a plătit părții reclamante satisfacția echitabilă prevăzută în hotărârea pronunțată; DECURSĂ că acesta și-a îndeplinit funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . . ACȚIUNEA REPORT App. No. 19334/03 DMD GROUP, a. s. v. Slovakia, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011 Introductory case summary Această rubrică se referă la o încălcare a dreptului la a hearing before a tribunalului established by law due to the decision by the president of a district Court in June 1999 to reassign to himself a case (brought by the aplicant company seeking enforcement of a financial claim against a major company involved in arms production) and then rule on it in private in the same day (violation of Article 6 § 1). Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expenses Total 000 EUR Paid on 04/02/2011 b) Individual measures Since 24 June 2005 the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possibility to reopen the domistic proceedings on the bazis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Section 228 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the procesedings may challenge a final judgment by a micion seeking to reopen the procesion if there exists a decision delivered by European Court of Human Rights, in which it found that a decision taken by national court, or the proceseedings preceding such a decision, had violated the fundamental rights or freedoms of the party to the proceseedings, whereby substantial consecvencess arising from such inchance have not been duly remeed by the awarded just satisfaction. Under Secțiunea 230 § 1, a micsoration for reopening of proceedings must be filded within the time limitat of three months from the day on which the person proposing the reopening learn about the reason for reopening or from the day on which he/she could use this reason (a subjective time limitat). Pursuant to section 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the cases referred to in section 228 § 1 (d), a micion for reopening of procedurals may also be filed after the expiry of the period of three years from the day on which the judgment became final (an obiectiv time limitat). No other individual measures seem to be necessary. II. General Measures a) Legislation The Regulation nr. 66/1992 Coll. on the Administrative Rules for District and Regional Courts had been in for until 1 January 2006. Since the new legal reglementation is in force. The recent legal regulation on asigning cases to judges (chambers) inclusivding scurt offices is regulated by Act no. 757/2004 Coll. on Courts and the Regulation of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic no. 543/2005 Coll. on the Administrating and Secretarial Rules for districts scurts, regionalal scurts, the Special Court and military scurts. The bazic rule for asigning cases to judges is that of their random asigning, using whereby the tehnicial aswell program means designated for this purpose - the so called electronic registry. Cases are asigned by random selection to judges, chambers and scurt offices concording to the subject matter of the proceseedings which means that upon reciving the micion by the scurt registry the scurt worke shall immediately register it with the this scurt registry and run the system of random selection (generation) of the legal judge. După finalizarea randomului selection the job of the court registry shall issue the party to the proceseding recepting of the micion containing data about the legal judge in sarcina in the given case. The Act expressly defines exceptions from asigning cases via Electronic registry being some of the decisions issued in the pre-trial procededings upon the Code of Criminal Procedure which must be handled without further delay (for example taking into custody, establishing the legal counsel etc.) or where are subject to confidential regime (the use of info-technical means), or as the case may be, anumite decizii in civil proceedings (for instance preliminary Measures in case of domesticy violence), where the use of the electronic registry is limited only the usual working time of the curte. În aceste instanțe, nu se atribuie randomly by means of Electronic registry but concording to the rules established in the scurts work schedule. Cases of execution (such as in case of DMD Group, a.s. Slovakia) do not belong within these exceptions. In general, the supleed scurt angajat, i.e. The senior scurt office shall decide in execution cases thus are these asigned to the latter by random selection. Judges shall exceptionally be asigned execution cases (for instance in knocking down to an auction) and if yes, by random asigning thereof. The law of the Slovak republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the legislation now in force will prevent similar in the viitor. b) Publication and disemination the judgment was publicished in the Judicial Review (Justična Review) No. 2/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 17 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and districts scurts and to the Supreme Court with the request to give prospect thereon to all judges of the scurts. By a letter of 3 October 2011 the judgment was simte to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give prospect to all constitutional judges about it. III. Concluzii of the respondent state The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consecvences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar viols and that Slovakia has compliment with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention. In Bratislava, 7 decembrie 2011 Marica Pirošíková Agent al Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 8 martie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1136-a reuniuni a delegaților miniștrilor. [2] a se vedea, de asemenea, recomandările adoptate de Comitetul de Miniștri în cadrul supravegherii hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului, în special Recomandarea Rec.,2004)6 al Comitetului miniștrilor din statele membre privind îmbunătățirea căilor de atac interne. [3] Doar documentul în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)51

[1]

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

DMD group, A.S contre République slovaque

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

DMD GROUP, A.S

(19334/03)

05/10/2010

05/01/2011

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(2011)1150E

)

[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

App. No. 19334/03

DMD GROUP, a. s. v. Slovakia, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a violation of the right to a hearing before a tribunal established by law due to the decision by the president of a district court in June 1999 to reassign to himself a case (brought by the applicant company seeking enforcement of a financial claim against a major company involved in arms production) and then rule on it in private in the same day (violation of Article 6 § 1).

I.

Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Cost and expenses

Total

4

000 euros

-

4

000 euros

Paid on 04/02/2011

b) Individual measures

Since 24 June 2005 the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possibility to reopen the domestic proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Section

228

§

1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the proceedings may challenge a final judgment by a petition seeking to reopen the proceedings if there exists a decision delivered by European Court of Human Rights, in which it found that a decision taken by national court, or the proceedings preceding such a decision, had violated the fundamental rights or freedoms of the party to the proceedings, whereby substantial consequences arising from such violation have not been duly remedied by the awarded just satisfaction. Under Section 230 § 1, a petition for reopening of proceedings must be filed within the time limit of three months from the day on which the person proposing the reopening learned about the reason for reopening or from the day on which he/she could use this reason (a subjective time limit). Pursuant to Section 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the cases referred to in Section 228 § 1 (d), a petition for reopening of proceedings may also be filed after the expiry of the period of three years from the day on which the judgment became final (an objective time limit).

No other individual measures seem to be necessary.

II.

General measures

a) Legislation

The Regulation no. 66/1992 Coll. on the Administrative Rules for District and Regional Courts had been in force until 1 January 2006. Since then the new legal regulation is in force. The recent legal regulation on assigning cases to judges (chambers) including court officers is regulated by Act no.

757/2004 Coll. on Courts and the Regulation of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic no.

543/2005 Coll. on the Administering and Secretarial Rules for district courts, regional courts, the Special Court and military courts.

The basic rule for assigning cases to judges is that of their random assigning, using whereby the technical as well program means designated for this purpose - the so called electronic registry. Cases are assigned by random selection to judges, chambers and court officers according to the subject matter of the proceedings which means that upon receiving the petition by the court registry the court employee shall immediately register it with the respective court registry and run the system of random selection (generation) of the legal judge. After terminating the random selection the employee of the court registry shall issue the party to the proceedings a confirming receipt of the petition containing data about the legal judge in charge in the given case. The Act expressly defines exemptions from assigning cases via electronic registry being some of the decisions issued in the pre-trial proceedings upon the Code of Criminal Procedure which must be handled without further delay (for example taking into custody, establishing the legal counsel etc.) or which are subject to confidential regime (the use of info-technical means), or as the case may be, certain decisions in civil proceedings (for instance preliminary measures in case of domestic violence), where the use of the electronic registry is limited only during the usual working time of the court.

In these instances cases are not assigned randomly by means of electronic registry but according to the rules established in the courts work schedule. Cases of execution (such as in case of DMD Group, a.s. v. Slovakia) do not belong within these exceptions. In general, the appointed court employee, i.e. the senior court officer shall decide in execution cases thus are these assigned to the latter by random selection. Judges shall exceptionally be assigned execution cases (for instance in knocking down to an auction) and if yes, by random assigning thereof. The law of the Slovak republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the legislation now in force will prevent similar violations in the future.

b) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (

Justična Revue

) No. 2/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 17 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and district courts and to the Supreme Court with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of these courts. By a letter of 3 October 2011 the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all constitutional judges about it.

III.

Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 7 December 2011

Marica Pirošíková

Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights

[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