CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 mars 2012

.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 } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sF29177A6 { height:1pt } .sD02AAC4D { border-top:0.75pt solid #88888a; vertical-align:top } .s6A92063D { border-top:0.75pt solid #88888a; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s2CF8A31C { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:middle } .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(2012)40 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Tănase against the Republic of Moldova     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 Tănase (7/08) 27 April 2010 Grand Chamber   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 action plan, document DH ‑ DD(2011)563 );   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.   THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA REPORT/PLAN OF ACTIONS IN CASE OF TANASE v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 7/08), Judgment of 27 April 2011) by the Grand Chamber Final on 27 April 2010   Introductory case summary   Violation of the freedom of expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature caused by the enacted law preventing elected MPs with multiple nationalities from taking seats in Parliament. Violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1   I. Individual measures   a) Payment Date and status: Only the compensation for costs and expenses in an amount of 8.881.83 EUR was awarded to the applicant. Finished: The amount of 8.881.83 EUR has been paid to the applicant on 13 July 2010.   b) Reopening of the domestic proceedings/ restitution in integrum   Date and status: It does not require such measures as reopening of the proceedings.   For restitutio in integrum see the general measures. -   II. General measures   a) Publication Date and measures   The judgment has been translated into Romanian and it is available on the official web page of the Ministry of Justice. Another publication is being prepared for the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.     Finished Available from 27 May 2010   On-going b) Dissemination Date and measures   The full translated copy of’ the judgment had been forwarded to all concerned national authorities. It has been accompanied by the Governmental Agent’s comments on modalities of execution of the individual and general measures. It was disseminated between the MPs being attached on the draft laws on amending the legal framework.     The Supreme Council of Magistrates. The Supreme Court of Justice. The General Prosecutor’s Office.   The Constitutional Court The Parliament c) Other imposed measures   Date and status It was required to amend the framework laws on election of MPs with dual citizenship. Finished on 31 December 2009’   The provisions of Law no.273 that banned certain categories of public servants to hold dual citizenship, including elected MPs with multiple nationalities from taking seats in Parliament, was amended by the Law no. 127 of 23 December 2009 in force from 31 December 2009. Respectively, the bans were lifted for all categories of public servants.           CONCLUSIONS   The Government considers that the above-mentioned measures that have been implemented by the authorities lead to a conclusion that the issues found by the Court in the present case had been solved. The consequences on the applicant’s situation have been properly remediated and he was adequately redressed in his rights. It may be appropriate to consider that these measures have a deterrent effect and they would prevent occurrence of a similar situation(s) and violation(s). Consequently, the Government considers that they have fulfilled their obligation under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention and it is appropriate to strike the present case out from the lists of pending cases before the Committee of Ministers. For these reasons, the Government invites the Committee of Ministers to close their supervision process in the present case.   Chisinau. 29 July 2011 Lilian APOSTOL on behalf of the Agent for the Government of the Republic of Moldova   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th 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.