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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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(2012)33 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Tsotsos against Greece   (Application No. 25109/07, judgment of 30 April 2009, final on 30 July 2009)     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 violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern a violation of the applicant’s right to have witnesses against him examined (violation of Article 6 paragraph 3 d) and the excessive length of criminal proceedings (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, 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 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(2012)33   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Tsotsos against Greece     Introductory case summary   The case concerns unfair criminal proceedings: the applicant was convicted on the decisive basis of statements of witnesses against him, which he was not able to challenge at any stage of the proceedings (violation of Article 6§3 d) The case also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (7 years and 7 months for three levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article   6§1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total   3500 EUR   3500 EUR Paid on 26/10/2009   b) Individual measures   Following the Court’s judgment, the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings under Article 525 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Cassation (judgment No. 554/2010) re ‑ examined the case following the applicant’s request and quashed his previous conviction. Further, it decided to drop the charges against him on the grounds of prescription. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   1) Right to examine or have witnesses examined   The European Court’s judgment translated into Greek was sent by the Ministry of Justice to the President and the General prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, in order to be further disseminated to all the relevant judicial authorities. The judgment was also published on the official website of the Legal Council of the State ( www.nsk.gr ). As the violation found does not appear to reveal a structural problem, no other general measures are deemed necessary.   2) Excessive length of criminal proceedings :   Legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before the criminal courts were adopted (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)66 on Tarighi Wageh Dashti and 7 other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005 ). However, additional issues in this field are highlighted in more recent judgments. The measures taken or envisaged by the Greek authorities are being supervised by the Committee of Ministers in the Manios group.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent 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 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.