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 } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8D9AE249 { margin-left:14.75pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA70221B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8pt } .s5A507FBE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s1A1E7C45 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.25pt } .sFC807C45 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.05pt } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E36AC5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8pt } .sFFD10DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s39EF71B7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s76877CE2 { letter-spacing:-0.05pt } .s688BFB10 { letter-spacing:0.05pt } .sE1805718 { margin:0pt 298.8pt 0pt 17.85pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8pt } .sE2EDB846 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.35pt } .s1849F500 { margin-top:6pt; margin-right:217.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:22.75pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s43F28183 { font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.35pt } .s4E003067 { margin:0pt 298.8pt 0pt 17.85pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s688BFB4E { letter-spacing:0.25pt } .s688BFB2F { letter-spacing:0.15pt } .sF8D31F50 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8pt } .s448DDAF1 { letter-spacing:0.1pt } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .sCC5C9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s688BFB6D { letter-spacing:0.35pt } .s7DF7A9CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8pt } .sA608C715 { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.05pt } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .s2AC5BF3B { margin-top:12.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s448DDAF3 { letter-spacing:0.3pt } .s448DDAF4 { letter-spacing:0.2pt } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s40216698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)136 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights: Garzičić against Montenegro     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”) [2] ,   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;   Case name (App. No.) Judgment of Final on Garzičić (17931/07) 29/09/2010 21/12/2010   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;   Having invited the authorities of the respondent state to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;   Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see appendix);   Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction as provided in the judgment;   DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)136   ACTION REPORT   on the execution of the ECtHR judgment in the Garzičić v. Montenegro case, application No. 17931/07, judgment of 21 September 2010, final on 21 December 2010   I.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   Reopening of domestic proceedings   The Supreme Court of Montenegro reopened the proceedings upon the request for appeal on points of law which was lodged by the Applicant to the Supreme Court as an extraordinary legal remedy. The case was immediately put into procedure and the Supreme Court adopted its decision on the same day when the reopening of the procedure of appeal on points of law was allowed - on 23 December 2010. No further individual measures are necessary.   II.   GENERAL MEASURES   a) Changes in the case law   Even before the procedure at ECtHR was finished, the Supreme Court of Montenegro adopted the judgment which changes its case law. The case law, namely, was such that the admissibility of the request for the appeal on points of law, as an extraordinary legal remedy used before the Supreme Court, was assessed on the basis of the amount of the paid court fee if the value of the matter of dispute was not properly established in the first instance civil procedure. By its recent judgment the Supreme Court of Montenegro fully harmonised its case law with the position of the ECtHR and adopted the legal position that in such situations every request for appeal on points of law is to be considered admissible. This new legal position was applied in all the cases where the Supreme Court of Montenegro has the power to decide in the procedure upon appeal on points of law.   b) Publication and dissemination   The ECtHR judgment in the Garzičić v. Montenegro case was published in the „Official Gazette of Montenegro 7/2011 of 28 January 2011. The judgment was also included into the printed collection of the selected judgments of the European Court of Human Rights II prepared by the Representative of Montenegro before ECtHR. This publication was disseminated to every judge and prosecutor in Montenegro as well as to other lawyers in public and local administration.   III.   JUST SATISFACTION Just satisfaction awarded to the Applicant was paid within the required deadline. Therefore, the Government of Montenegro deems it has carried out all the necessary measures in order to implement ECtHR judgment in the abovementioned case, and proposes to the Committee of Ministers the closure of the supervision procedure and adoption of a final resolution. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies [2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies.