CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 septembre 2011

.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 } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF5DD15CD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCDDD76F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .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 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; 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(2011)86 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Qufaj Co. Sh.P.K against Albania   (Application No. 54268/00, judgment of 18 November 2004, final on 30 March 2005)     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 the failure to enforce a final domestic decision ordering a municipality to compensate the applicant company for damage sustained following the refusal to grant a building permit (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 its 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 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 by the Court in its judgments, 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(2011)86   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Qufaj Co. Sh.P.K against Albania     Introductory case summary   This case concerns a violation of the applicant company’s right to a fair trial due to the failure to enforce a final judicial decision (violation of Article 6§1). By judgment of 23/02/1996, the Tirana Court of Appeal sentenced the Municipality of Tirana to pay compensation to the applicant company for losses resulting from the refusal to grant a building permit. However, this judgment was not executed on the grounds that the state allegedly lacked the necessary funds, despite various steps taken by the applicant company. The company therefore brought proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which declared that enforcement proceedings did not fall within its jurisdiction. The European Court recalled that enforcement of judicial decisions is an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 and that a delay in enforcement may impair the essence of the right to a fair trial (§38 of the judgment).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 60   000 000 ALL 70 000 EUR 2 000 EUR 60   000 000 ALL + 72 000 EUR Paid on 22/07/2005   The applicant waived his right to default interest.   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, including the sums at issue in the unenforced decision. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   According to the Albanian authorities, the violation found by the Court in this case results mainly from the lack of funds in the Municipality of Tirana.   Currently, Albanian legislation does not provide any special budget in the state budget dedicated to payment of debts deriving from final domestic judgments against the state. In general terms, state institutions are required to act in accordance with the Council of Ministers’ Decision No. 335 of 14/10/2010 and the Instruction of the Minister of Finances on "Implementation of the annual budget", according to which the execution of judicial decisions lies in principle within the responsibility of the concerned state institution and the amounts to be paid are taken from its approved budget. Public institutions have to foresee, within the limit of their annual budget, the amounts they might be required to pay following a judicial decision.   However, the efforts of the Albanian authorities to ensure the enforcement of final court decisions and create a special budget dedicated to payment of debts deriving from final decision against the state will continue. These questions will be followed in the framework of the pending execution of the Driza group of cases (33771/02) and of the case of Puto (609/07) respectively.   The European Court’s judgment was translated into Albanian and published in the Official Gazette, No. extra of July 2007. By an official letter of 22/11/2004 it was also sent out to the Prime Minister, the President of the High Council of Justice, the President of the Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of European Integration and the Tirana Municipality. Moreover, the Government Agent has translated and forwarded it to the Ministry of Justice (General Department of Codification, Bailiffs Office, Commission of Legal Reforms), to the Parliament, the Bar and to civil society.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the issue of general measures will continue to be followed by the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the cases mentioned above and that Albania has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies