AFFAIRE KEHAYA ET AUTRES CONTRE LA BULGARIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)238 Kehaya și alții împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârilor Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Cerere n Cauza Hotărârea Determinativului 47797/99+ KEHAYA ȘI ALTELE 12/01/2006 14/06/2007 12/04/2006 14/09/2007 (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 5 decembrie 2013, în cadrul celei de-a 1186-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârile finale transmise de Curte Comitetului în această cauză și încălcările constatate care reamintesc obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare care au invitat guvernul din statul pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligației respective După ce a examinat bilanțul de acțiune furnizat de guvern indicând măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârilor, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)1183 [1] și asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . ACȚIUNEA REPORT KEHAYA AND OTERS v. Bulgaria (numai în limba engleză) Aplicația nr. 47797/99 Judgment of 12/01/2006 Final on 12/04/2006 Judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007 (art. 41) Case descrierea și încălcarea normelor The caseta se referă la failure by the Bulgarian Courts to respect the final character of a judgment of 1996, ordering the restitution of anumite plots of land to the aplicants (violation of Article 6 § 1). In 2000, following procesing brought by the local Forest Authority, the Supreme Court of Cassation reconsidered The Supreme Court of Cassation found that the decision of 1996 did not have res judicata effects in respect of the Forest Authority, as this decizies was delivered in procesedings which were administrative by their nature, with the participation of the Agricultural Land Commission. The case also resolutions a breach to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants Furtermore, one of the aplicants was fined in 1997 for having used the land which belonged to him concording to the decision of 1996 (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Individual measures As as the question of just satisfaction, the Court found that the respondent State should either either return to the applicants the ownersship and posesie of the plots of land at issues or pay the applicants within the same deadlines cert sums coresponding to the value of the property. The Bulgarian authorities did not invers the land at issues to the aplicants, but instead paid the amounts amounts awarded by the European Court as compensation for pecuniary damage in case of non-restitution, as well amounts awarded in respect of moraly damages and for costs and expenses, into bank accounts specialy opened for that purpose in the name of the aplicants. No further individual measures are required. General Measures Legislative Measures and changes in case-law According to Article 302 of the new Code of Civil Procedure (in for as of 01.03.2008), a final judgment by an administrativ scurt shall be binding upon the civil scurt regarding the lawfulness and the validity of an administrativ act. Moreover, acording to Article 177 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, a judgment by which an administrativ scurt has quashed or amended an administrativ act is res judicata with res to all persons (erga omnes). The civil scurt is thus no more content to perform the verification (indirect juridic review of the civil scurt over administrative acts) which it was obligad to carry out under the interpretative Decision No 6 of 05.10.2006 of the Supreme Court of Cassation and under the provision of theold Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, it follows that the old Practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation is no longer application. This has been confirmăd by an interpretative decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation adopted on 14.01.2013. According to this interpretative decision, the State is bound by the res judicata effect of judgments delivered in proceseding the lawfulness of administrative acts adopted under the Use and Property on Agricultural Land Act and the Restitution of Forests and Lands from the Forest Fund Act. The Supreme Court of Cassation considered that the State can compromision the validity of an administrativ act taken under one of these two Acts in civil proceseedings only If this administrativ act had not been reviewed by the scurts. Publication and disemination The judgment was publicshed on the website of the Ministry of Justice and simte to the competent authorities. IV. Concluzii In concluzie the government considers that the general measures will prevent new similarar încălcăris and that Bulgaria has compliment with its obligation under 46 §1 of the convention. The government prin urmare looks forward to the Committee

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)238

Kehaya et autres contre Bulgarie

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

Requête n

o

Affaire

Arrêt du

Définitif le

47797/99+

KEHAYA ET AUTRES

12/01/2006

14/06/2007

12/04/2006

14/09/2007

(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 5 décembre 2013,

lors de la 1186e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)

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 que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu les arrêts définitifs transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire et les violations constatées

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in integrum

;

et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables

;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter les arrêts, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document

DH-DD(2013)1183

[1]

)

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,

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

KEHAYA AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria

(anglais uniquement)

Application No. 47797/99

Judgment of 12/01/2006

Final on 12/04/2006

Judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007 (Article 41)

Case description and Convention violations found

The case concerns the failure by the Bulgarian courts to respect the final character of a judgment of 1996, ordering the restitution of certain plots of land to the applicants (violation of Article 6, § 1).

In 2000, following proceedings brought by the local Forest Authority, the Supreme Court of Cassation reconsidered

the issue of restitution, determined by a judicial decision in 1996 in proceedings in which the applicants had appealed against a refusal of the Agricultural Land Commission to grant restitution of certain plots of land

. The Supreme Court of Cassation found that the decision of 1996 did not have

res judicata

effects in respect of the Forest Authority, as this decision was delivered in proceedings which were administrative by their nature, with the participation of the Agricultural Land Commission.

The case also concerns a breach to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants’ property, as the Supreme Court of Cassation’s decision of 2000 had the effect of depriving them of their possession, in violation of the principle of legal certainty. Furthermore, one of the applicants was fined in 1997 for having used the land which belonged to him according to the decision of 1996 (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures

As concerns the question of just satisfaction, the Court found that the respondent State should either return to the applicants the ownership and possession of the plots of land at issue or pay the applicants within the same deadlines certain sums corresponding to the value of the property. The Bulgarian authorities did not return the land at issue to the applicants, but instead paid the amounts awarded by the European Court as compensation for pecuniary damage in case of non-restitution, as well amounts awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damages and for costs and expenses, into bank accounts specially opened for that purpose in the name of the applicants. No further individual measures are required.

General measures

-

Legislative measures and changes in case-law

According to Article 302 of the new Code of Civil Procedure (in force as of 01.03.2008), a final judgment by an administrative court shall be binding upon the civil court regarding the lawfulness and the validity of an administrative act. Moreover, according to Article 177 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, a judgment by which an administrative court has quashed or amended an administrative act is

res judicata

with regard to all persons (erga omnes).

The civil court is thus no more competent to perform the verification (indirect judicial review of the civil court over administrative acts) which it was obliged to carry out under the Interpretative Decision № 6 of 05.10.2006 of the Supreme Court of Cassation and under the provisions of the old Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, it follows that the old practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation is no longer applicable.

This has been confirmed by an interpretative decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation adopted on 14/01/2013. According to this interpretative decision, the State is bound by the

res judicata

effect of judgments delivered in proceedings concerning the lawfulness of administrative acts adopted under the Use and Property on Agricultural Land Act and the Restitution of Forests and Lands from the Forest Fund Act.

The Supreme Court of Cassation considered that the State can contest the validity of an administrative act taken under one of these two Acts in civil proceedings

only

if this administrative act had not been reviewed by the courts.

-

Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published on the web site of the Ministry of Justice and sent to the competent authorities.

IV.

Conclusions

In conclusion the government considers that the general measures will prevent new similar violations and that Bulgaria has complied with its obligation under 46 §1 of the Convention. The government therefore looks forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.

[1]

Anglais uniquement.