AFFAIRE LEXA CONTRE LA REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)53 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Lexa 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 Determinativului Lexa (34761/03) 05/01/2010 05/04/2010 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)1165E [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că în statul pârât a plătit părții reclamante satisfacția echitabilă prevăzută în hotărârea; DECURSĂ că acesta și-a îndeplinit funcțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d Această rubrică se referă la încălcarea articolului 5 alineatul (4) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009. The applicant lodged a compaint against the Bratislava I District Courts decision to remand her in custody. on 7 January 2003 he requested that his counsel should be allowed to consult the file. The regional scurt allowed the counsel to examined the file from 9 to 12 a. on 14 January 2003. It dismissed the applicant at a session held in camera on 14 January 2003, shortly after the applicant applicant appliced the file. The aplicant was released in June 2003 and the proceseedings against hym were discontinued in September 2006 for lack of proof. The European Court considered that although the regional scurt allowed the applicicants counsel to consult the file, neither he nor the applicant had suficient oportunity to take cognitive of the evidence; they had had no Practical possibility of submitting arguments, written or oral, to challenge its relativity (§ 72-73 of the judgment). I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures Details of just satisfaction Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Cost and expensions Total 000 EUR 000 EUR Paid on 06/07/2010 Individual measures The violation found appears to be of an izolated natura. No other individual Measures seem to be necessary. II. General Measures a) Legislation art. 69§1 din Codul Criminal Procedure (The Act No. 301/2005 Coll.), efectiv de la 1 ianuarie 2006, give the acuză person the right to contsult the file with anumite restricții enumerated therein. art. 69 alineatul (2) provides that, at the pre-trial stagiar, the public prosecutor or the police authority can only refuz a person access to a file se referă la el or her for exceptional reasons, mainly if no such measures preventing the frustration or substantial hindering in successing the purpose of the criminal proceedings may be taken. Prosecutor shall be obligad to speedily review the pietrity of the reasons upon which the law enforcement authority rejected such right upon the perquest afected by the rejection. If the right to consult the file and the remaining right in connection therewith listed in section 1 were rejected by the prosecutor upon grave reasons upon the perquest afect by the rejection, the superior prosecutor shall be obligad to speedily review the reasonability of such rejection. Cu effect from 1 February 2009, under Article 69§6, the pre-trial judge shall have identical rights as the law enforcement authority has if dealing with the file within its competience during the procededings. However, if the pre-trial judge in the proceseedings on detention prior to taking the decision on it rejects the acuzed or the counsel the right to contsult the endire file, concurently with the rejection of such right it shall mark and grant access of such consultation to the apped or its counsel to those parts of the file containingfacts or evidence considered in detention pursuant to Articles 71 to 87 and 339. The Code of Criminal Procedure (The Act No. 301/2005 Coll.) was not in force at the time of the violation in this case but that nonetheless, the applicant benefitted from a similar provision under Article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Actul nr. 141/1961 Coll.) the n in force. The law of the Slovak Republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the case does not require adoption of legislative measures. b) Publication and disemination The judgment was publicushed in the Judicial Review (Justičná Review) No. 4/2010. The judgment was miros to the General Prosecutor, to the Constitutional Court, to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and was distributed to all regional and districts scurts. III. Concluzii of the respondent state The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus compliment with their obligations under art. 46§1 of the Convention. In Bratislava, 13 decembrie 2011 Marica Pirošiková Agent 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 a Comitetului de Miniștri către statele membre privind îmbunătățirea căilor de atac interne. [3] Document numai în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)53

[1]

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

Lexa 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

Lexa (34761/03)

05/01/2010

05/04/2010

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(2011)1165E

)

[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. 34761/03

Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 2), judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right adequately to challenge the grounds for his detention (violation of Article 5 § 4). The applicant, a former director of the Slovakian intelligence service, was arrested in December 2002 on charges of incitement to commit murder, abuse of authority and mishandling of classified state secrets. The applicant lodged a complaint against the Bratislava I District Courts decision to remand him in custody. On 7 January 2003 he requested that his counsel should be allowed to consult the file. The regional court allowed the counsel to examine the file from 9 to 12 a. m. on 14 January 2003. It dismissed the applicant’s complaint at a session held in camera on 14 January 2003, shortly after the applicant’s counsel had consulted the file. The applicant was released in June 2003 and the proceedings against him were discontinued in September 2006 for lack of proof.

The European Court considered that although the regional court allowed the applicant’s counsel to consult the file, neither he nor the applicant had had sufficient opportunity to take cognisance of the evidence; they had had no practical possibility of submitting arguments, written or oral, to challenge its reliability (§§ 72-73 of the judgment).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a)

Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Cost and expenses

Total

2

000 euros

5

000 euros

7

000 euros

Paid on 06/07/2010

b)

Individual measures

The violation found appears to be of an isolated nature. No other individual measures seem to be necessary.

II. General measures

a) Legislation

Article 69§1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Act no. 301/2005 Coll.), effective from 1 January 2006, gives the accused person the right to consult the file with certain restrictions enumerated therein. Article 69 § 2 provides that, at the pre-trial stage, the public prosecutor or the police authority can only refuse a person access to a file concerning him or her for exceptional reasons, mainly if no such measures preventing the frustration or substantial hindering in accomplishing the purpose of the criminal proceedings may be taken. The prosecutor shall be obliged to speedily review the gravity of the reasons upon which the law enforcement authority rejected such right upon the individual’s request affected by the rejection. If the right to consult the file and the remaining right in connection therewith listed in section 1 were rejected by the prosecutor upon grave reasons upon the individual’s request affected by the rejection, the superior prosecutor shall be obliged to speedily review the reasonability of such rejection.

With effect from 1 February 2009, under Article 69§6, the pre-trial judge shall have identical rights as the law enforcement authority has if dealing with the file within its competence during the proceedings. However, if the pre-trial judge in the proceedings on detention prior to taking the decision on it rejects the accused or the counsel the right to consult the entire file, concurrently with the rejection of such right it shall mark and grant access of such consultation to the accused or its counsel to those parts of the file containing facts or evidence considered in deciding on detention pursuant to Articles 71 to 87 and 339. The Code of Criminal Procedure (the Act no. 301/2005 Coll.) was not in force at the time of the violation in this case but that nonetheless, the applicant benefitted from a similar provision under Article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act no. 141/1961 Coll.) then in force.

The law of the Slovak Republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the case does not require adoption of legislative measures.

b) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 4/2010. The judgment was sent to the General Prosecutor, to the Constitutional Court, to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and was distributed to all regional and district courts.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava, 13 December 2011

Marica Pirošiková

Agent 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