Hajduova împotriva Slovaciei

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)58 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Hajduova 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 Hajduova (2660/03) 30/1/2010 28/02/2011 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)962E [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că Statul pârât a plătit părții reclamante satisfacția echitabilă prevăzută în hotărârea pronunțată; DECURSĂ că a îndeplinit funcțiile care îi revin în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d Această rubrică se referă la o încălcare a dreptului de a privatiza și de a face parte din viața de familie datorată pentru a proteja aplicantul de la el forma hus ques abuzs and threatening behaviour.

In January 2002, the District Court failed to ensure that her ex-husband be placed in a spital for the purpose of psychiatric treatment immedialy after his convingent for having attacked her in public and altered death threats (violation of Article 8). Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary dage Costs and expenses Total 000 de euro 000 de euro Paid on 05/04/2011 b) Individual measures on 22 February 2002 the District Courtcorned for psychiatric treatment of the applicant April 2002 the District Court, at urmator of the spital, changed the inpacient treatment of the applicicants ex-husband to the outpaits treatment. According to the spital record, the applicant Electroluxs ex-husband is conscious of the necessity of the treatment and voluntarily undergoes it, his mental condition is stabil.

As a result of the applicicants succesful treatment in spital, the Government is of the opinie that no further individual measures are required. II. General Measures a) Legislation În această casetă, art. 8 was violated chause of the District Court as failure to comply with its statutory obligation to order the applicicants ex-husband detention for psychiatric treatment following hiscondament on 7 January 2002 (see § 52 of the judgment). The case prin urmare does not require adoption of legislative measures and the law of the Slovak Republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention. Under Section 445§1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the president of the chamber shall order protective treatment to the medical institution where it should be realizashed.

However, if the protective treatment was impuned alongside un ecoconditional impresionment and the inchisoare or spital for acuză and convicted dispune with sucient conditions for such treatments, the president of the chamber may order the preventive treatment to be performed during imprisonment. Under Secțiunea 445§2, shall the person impuned protective treatment be pericolous for his/her comunity when at liberty, the president of the chamber shall without further delays provides for his/her delivery to the medical institution; otherwise he/she may be provided adequate time for procuring his/her affairs. b) Publication and dissemination The judgment was publicshed in the Justična Review No. 4/2011.

By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 18 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and districts scurts with the request to give prospect thereon to all judge of these scurts. By a letter of 18 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, 3 November 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 de Miniștri al statelor membre privind îmbunătățirea căilor de atac interne. [3] Doar în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)58 [1] Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Hajduova 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 Hajduova (2660/03) 30/11/2010 28/02/2011 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)962E ) [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. 2660/03 Hajduova v. Slovakia, judgment of 30/11/2010, final on 28/02/2011 Introductory case summary This case concerns a violation of the right to private and family life due to the authorities’ failure to protect the applicant from her former husband’s abusive and threatening behaviour. In January 2002, the District Court failed to ensure that her ex-husband be placed in a hospital for the purpose of psychiatric treatment immediately after his conviction for having attacked her in public and uttered death threats (violation of Article 8). I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 4 000 euros 1 000 euros 5 000 euros Paid on 05/04/2011 b) Individual measures On 22 February 2002 the District Court arranged for psychiatric treatment of the applicant’s ex-husband.

He was consequently transported to a hospital in Plešivec (see §13 of the judgment). On 22 April 2002 the District Court, at suit of the hospital, changed the inpatient treatment of the applicant’s ex-husband to the outpatient treatment. According to the hospital record, the applicant’s ex-husband is conscious of the necessity of the treatment and voluntarily undergoes it, his mental condition is stable. As a result of the applicant’s successful treatment in hospital, the Government is of the opinion that no further individual measures are required. II. General measures a) Legislation In this case, Article 8 was violated because of the District Court’s failure to comply with its statutory obligation to order the applicant’s ex-husband detention for psychiatric treatment following his conviction on 7 January 2002 (see § 52 of the judgment).

The case therefore does not require adoption of legislative measures and the law of the Slovak Republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention. Under Section 445§1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the president of the chamber shall order protective treatment to the medical institution where it should be accomplished. However, if the protective treatment was imposed alongside unconditional imprisonment and the prison or hospital for accused and convicted dispose with sufficient conditions for such treatments, the president of the chamber may order the preventive treatment to be performed during imprisonment. Under Section 445§2, shall the person imposed protective treatment be dangerous for his/her community when at liberty, the president of the chamber shall without further delays provide for his/her delivery to the medical institution; otherwise he/she may be provided adequate time for procuring his/her affairs.

b) Publication and dissemination The judgment was published in the Justična Revue No. 4/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 18 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and district courts with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of these courts. By a letter of 18 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, 3 November 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