AFFAIRE HUDAKOVA ET AUTRES CONTRE LA REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)57 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Hudáková 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 Hudáková (23083/05) 27/04/2010 27/07/2010 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(2012)128E [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 .n . . ACȚIUNEA REPORT App. No. 23083/05 Hudáková and others v. Slovakia, judgment of 27/04/2010, final on 27/07/2010 Introductory case summary Această rubrică se referă la unfairness of civil proceedings brought against the applicants due to the failure of the Supreme Court to communicate written observations submitted by the plantiffs in July 2004 to the aplicants (încălcarea articolului 6 alineatul (1)). In 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant appeal on points of law: the appeal on point of law was net rejected on the grounds that it failed to meet the requirements for admissibility of the appeal, the Supreme Court Judgment dismissed the appeal in its merits. It indicated inter allia These observations were not comunicated to the aplicants. The European Court noted that onus had been on the Supreme Court to affices an oportunity to cum on the written observations Moreover, the opportuning party in the procesing, unlike the aplicants, had access to all the information in the case file. In permitting the plângeffs to submit written observations and denying the applicants sight of and the oportunity to cum on these observations the Supreme Court had failed to treat the partis equaly (see § 29 luats 30 of the judgment). Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction The European Court held that the finding of a incalcation constituent just satisfaction for the aplicants and dismissed the remainder of their claim for just satisfaction (see § 39 and 42 of the judgment) b) Individual measures The Government consider that this case does not call for the reopening of domestic proceedings. Notwithstanding, the Government note that on 24 June 2005 an amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure was adopted (with effect of 1 September 2005). This amendment provides for the possibility to reopen the domestic procedeedings on the bazis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Secțiunea 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 proceduratings if there exists a decision delivered by European Court of Human Rights, in which it found that a decision taken by național scurt, or the procesedings preceding such a decision, had violated the fundamental rights or freedoms of the party to the proceedings, whereby substantial consecvencessions arising from such încălcarea have not been duly remedied 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 procesing 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). Il. General Measures a) Publication and disemination The judgment was publicityshed in the Judicial Review (Justičná Review) No. 10/2010. The judgment was miros to the Supreme Court. The President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court informed the Agent of the Government that all judge of the Supreme Court were notificăd of the judgment b) Domestic Court Practice In response to the above-mentioned letter of the Agent, the President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court stated that in cases when the first instance court failed to send observations on appeal on points of law to the opozing party, the Supreme Court, with play to the judgment in the case Hudáková and others, simte tote observations to the opozing party itself. At the same time the President noted that, with vizion to the judgment in the case Hudáková and others, the Supreme Court in several decisions delivered by the end of 2010 and during 2011 expresed the legal view that "the failure to deliver the party The Supreme Court considered the conducted when the appeal scurt failed to deliver the comentations of one party on the appeal lodged by the other party to the latter (the apelant) as an error in the proceseding consisting in the prevention of acting before the curte, thus an admisibil ground for an appeal pursuant to Article 237f of the Code of Civil Procedure. In those procesheedings afecteazad by such error it quashed the apellate judgments and remanded the matter for further hearing to the apellate Court (see the decisions of the Supreme Court file no. 4 Cdo 141/2010, 5 Cdo 200/2010, 1 Cdo 187/2010. 5 Cdo 270/2010, 5 Cdo 92/2011). In case the comentarius of one party on the action lodged by the other party to the latter (the plantaiff) failed on delivery already at the first instance Court, the Supreme quashed not only the apellate judgment but also that of first instance and remanded the matter to the first instance cour for further hearing (see the decision of the Supreme Court file no. 5 Cdo 66/2010). III. Concluzii privind respondent State the Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus compliment with their obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention. In Bratislava, 1 February 2012 Marica Pirošiková Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 8 martie 2012 cu ocazia celei de-a 1136-a reuniuni a Delegaților. [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 al statelor membre privind îmbunătățirea căilor de atac interne. [3] Document numai în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)57

[1]

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

Hudáková 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

Hudáková (23083/05)

27/04/2010

27/07/2010

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)128E

)

[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. 23083/05

Hudáková and others v. Slovakia, judgment of 27/04/2010, final on 27/07/2010

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the unfairness of civil proceedings brought against the applicants due to the failure of the Supreme Court to communicate written observations submitted by the plaintiffs in July 2004 to the applicants (violation of Article 6 § 1). In 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law: the appeal on point of law was net rejected on the grounds that it failed to meet the requirements for admissibility of the appeal, the Supreme Court judgment dismissed the appeal in its merits. It indicated

inter alia

that the plaintiffs had submitted observations on this appeal. These observations were not communicated to the applicants.

The European Court noted that the onus had been on the Supreme Court to afford the applicants an opportunity to comment on the written observations Moreover, the opposing party in the proceedings, unlike the applicants, had access to all the information in the case file. In permitting the plaintiffs to submit written observations and denying the applicants sight of and the opportunity to comment on these observations the Supreme Court had failed to treat the parties equally (see §§ 29 — 30 of the judgment).

I.

Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

The European Court held that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants and dismissed the remainder of their claim for just satisfaction (see §§ 39 and 42 of the judgment)

b) Individual measures

The Government consider that this case does not call for the reopening of domestic proceedings. Notwithstanding, the Government note that on 24 June 2005 an amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure was adopted (with effect of 1 September 2005). This amendment 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).

Il.

General measures

a) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 10/2010. The judgment was sent to the Supreme Court. The President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court informed the Agent of the Government that all judges of the Supreme Court were notified of the judgment

b) Domestic court practice

In response to the above-mentioned letter of the Agent, the President of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court stated that in cases when the first instance court failed to send observations on appeal on points of law to the opposing party, the Supreme Court, with regard to the judgment in the case Hudáková and others, sent those observations to the opposing party itself.

At the same time the President noted that, with regard to the judgment in the case Hudáková and others, the Supreme Court in several decisions delivered by the end of 2010 and during 2011 expressed the legal view that "the failure to deliver the party’s comments on the appeal of the other party (appellant) creates the state of inequality of the parties in the proceedings before the court shall be contrary to the principle of equality of arms, interfering thus with the right to a fair trial". The Supreme Court considered the conduct when the appeal court failed to deliver the comments of one party on the appeal lodged by the other party to the latter (the appellant) as an error in the proceedings consisting in the prevention of acting before the court, thus an admissible ground for an appeal pursuant to Article 237f of the Code of Civil Procedure. In those proceedings affected by such error it quashed the appellate judgments and remanded the matter for further hearing to the appellate court (see the decisions of the Supreme Court file nos. 4 Cdo 141/2010, 5 Cdo 200/2010, 1 Cdo 187/2010. 5 Cdo 270/2010, 5 Cdo 92/2011). In case the comments of one party on the action lodged by the other party to the latter (the plaintiff) failed on delivery already at the first instance court, the Supreme Court quashed not only the appellate judgment but also that of first instance and remanded the matter to the first instance court for further hearing (see the decision of the Supreme Court file no.

5 Cdo 66/2010).

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, 1 February 2012

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