CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s35E51398 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-size:12pt } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2D2AB0A7 { height:12.45pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s25E6E78A { height:13.2pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)168 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Boulougouras against Greece   (Application No. 66294/01, judgment of 27 May 2004, final on 27 August 2004)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns disproportionate hindrance of the applicant’s right of access to a court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Greece’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)168   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Boulougouras against Greece     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, in that in 2000 the Court of Cassation declared his appeal against a criminal court judgment inadmissible, after the registrar of the criminal court had omitted to countersign the notice of appeal containing the grounds of appeal. The European Court found that the Court of Cassation thus penalised the applicant for a clerical error for which he was not responsible and noted that such excessive formalism in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation was unacceptable, resulting in an infringement of the very essence of the applicant’s right to a court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a)      Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 5000 EUR - 5000 EUR Paid on 22/10/2004   b) Individual measures   The applicant is entitled to request the reopening of the proceedings at issue, following the judgment of the European Court, in accordance with Article 525§1.5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   The Ministry of Justice communicated the European Court’s judgment to the Court of Cassation. The European Court’s judgment was translated and published on the site of the State Legal Council ( www.nsk.gr ). The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation expressly applied the present judgment of the European Court and accepted that an appeal on a point of law should not be declared inadmissible merely because of a failure to countersign the notice of appeal (judgments 665/2005, 677/2005 and 887/2005). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in a more recent judgment. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the Vamvakas case.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers 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 new, similar violations and that Greece has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies