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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .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)11 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Bistrović against Croatia     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 Bistrović (25774/05) 31/05/2007 31/08/2007   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 report, document DH ‑ DD(2011)1130 );   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 its examination thereof.   ACTION REPORT CASE: Bistrović v.Croatia, application no. 25774/05, Judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007   In its Judgment of March 31 2007, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) due to the Croatian authorities’ failure to establish all the relevant factors, including the reduction of the value of the remaining land, when assessing the compensation payable on the expropriation of part of the applicants’ farm.   1.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   On 21/10/2008, Varaždin County Court granted the applicant’s request for reopening of proceedings based on the ECtHR judgment in accordance with section 428(a) of the Civil Procedure Act. In reopened proceedings, on 26/02/2009 the County Court quashed the contested decision of the State Administration Office of Varaždin County (hereinafter: the Office) of 16/04/2003 and remitted the case to the same Office for re-examination.   Therefore, the applicants exercised their right to reopen the proceedings that are the subject of their complaint before the ECtHR.   In reopened expropriation proceedings before the State Administration Office of Varaždin County, an authorized expert witness assessed all the relevant factors for determining the compensation for the applicants’ expropriated property (such as traffic frequency, noise exposure, other missions etc.).   On 02/06/2011, the Office delivered a new decision on the expropriation of the applicants’ farm and awarded compensation for expropriation in the amount of 623.4678,62 HRK in total (cca 83.763.46 EUR).   The decision regarding the compensation to be awarded to the applicants for the expropriation of their farm became final on 02/06/2011.   2.   GENERAL MEASURES   The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice ( http:// w ww.mp r h.hr/) .   The judgment has been disseminated to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Varaždin County Court. Therefore, relevant authorities have been informed of the findings of the ECtHR in this case.   Since this was the only ECtHR judgment against Croatia concerning the application of the Expropriation Act (Official Gazette, nos. 9/94, 35/94, 112/00, 114/01, 79/06, 45/11) which was contrary of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Government emphasizes that the violation found by the ECtHR in this case is individual.   General measures undertaken in the execution of the judgment in this case, as described above, are sufficient to avoid similar violations in the future.   3.   JUST SATISFACTION   Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage has been paid within a designated deadline on 30 October 2007. Payment information was delivered to the Department for the Execution of Judgments on 21 November 2007.   4.   CONCLUSIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT   In light of all measures taken, the Government deems that no other measures, individual or general, are required to assure that no future violations of this kind occur.   Therefore, the Government proposes to the Committee of Ministers to close the supervision procedure and adopt a final resolution in accordance with Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.   [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.