AFFAIRE TRGO CONTRE LA CROATIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012) 13 [1] Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Trgo împotriva Croației 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 "CEDO"). 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 Definitivului Trgo (35298/04) 11/06/2009 11/09/2009 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 DH-DD(2011) 364 [3] după ce a luat act de faptul că Statul pârât le-a acordat părților 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 de la . ACȚIUNE REPORT CASE: Trgo v. Croatia Application nr. 35298/04, Judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009 In its judgment, the ECTHR found a violation of Article I of Protocol 1 to the Convention, because the domestic scurts had refuzed to acknowledge his ownership of anumite plots of land he had acquired by object depossion. The ECTHR found that the consecinces of a mistake by the State authority - enacting un constitutional legislation - had to be borne by the State and not the individual. INDIVIDUAL MEASURI The applicant requested request of proceseding before the Municipal Court in Makarska. The applicants. Request was rejected sine it was lodged out of time. On 23 July 2010 Split County Court confirmăd that decision. Under Croatian law, Decisions of county Courts as scurts of a doua instance are final on the day of their passing. Therefore, domestic proceedings in the applicant Electroluxs case have ended. GENERAL MEASSURI The judgment has been translated into Croațian language and publicshed on the web page of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.mprh.hr/Default.aspx?sec=446). The judgment has also been disseminated to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, County Court in Split, Municipal Court in Makarska, State Attorney Therefore, the relevant authorities have been informed of the findings of the ECTHR in this case. The Government draws atention to thefact that this is an individual incalcare. Therefore, no other general measure beyond publicity and disemination is necessary. JUST SATISFACȚION The ECTHR held that finding of a încălcarea Constituted in itself sucient just satisfaction for moraly damage sustained by the aplicant. The Government deems that no other measures (individual or general) are required to execute the judgment. Therefore, the Government propuss to the Committee of Ministers the cloud of the execution supervision proces, and the a final resolution (art. 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements). [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)13

[1]

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

Trgo contre Croatie

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

Trgo (35298/04)

11/06/2009

11/09/2009

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 bilan d’action, document

DH-DD(2011)364

[3]

)

;

Ayant noté que

l’Etat défendeur a versé aux parties requérantes 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

CASE: Trgo v. Croatia

Application no. 35298/04, Judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009

In its judgment, the ECtHR found a violation of Article I of Protocol 1 to the Convention, because the domestic courts had refused to acknowledge his ownership of certain plots of land he had acquired by adverse possession. The ECtHR found that the consequences of a mistake by the State authority - enacting unconstitutional legislation - had to be borne by the State and not the individual.

INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

The applicant requested reopening of proceedings before the Municipal Court in Makarska. The applicants’ request was rejected since it was lodged out of time. On 23 July 2010 Split County Court confirmed that decision. Under Croatian law, decisions of county courts as courts of second instance are final on the day of their passing. Therefore, domestic proceedings in the applicant’s case have ended.

GENERAL MEASURES

The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice (

http://www.mprh.hr/Default.aspx?sec=446).

The judgment has also been disseminated to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, County Court in Split, Municipal Court in Makarska, State Attorney’s Office, County State Attorney’s Office in Split, Legislation Committee of the Croatian Parliament, Legislation Office of the Government of RoC and Civil Law Directorate of the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, the relevant authorities have been informed of the findings of the ECtHR in this case.

The Government draws attention to the fact that this is an individual violation. Therefore, no other general measure beyond publication and dissemination is necessary.

JUST SATISFACTION

The ECtHR held that finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

The Government deems that no other measures (individual or general) are required to execute the judgment.

Therefore, the Government proposes to the Committee of Ministers the closure of the execution supervision procedure, and the adoption of a final resolution (Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements).

[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