CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 6 décembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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)157 [1] Hovanesian against Bulgaria Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights   (Application No. 31814/03, judgment of 21 December 2010, final on 21 March 2011)     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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)920E );   Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent state, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)920E );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46§1 have been adopted;   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.   Action report   Case of Hovanesian v. Bulgaria, application no. 31814/03, judgment of 21 December 2010, final on 21 March 2011     The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to have the free assistance of an interpreter on account of having been ordered by the domestic courts to reimburse interpreter fees incurred in criminal proceedings against him which started in 1999 (violation of Article   6   §   3(e)).     1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   Under Article 41 of the Convention, the European Court awarded the applicant the amounts he had paid for interpreter fees in the domestic proceedings, plus costs and expenses. The Government has paid these sums on 21/12/2011. On the other hand, the Court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient satisfaction in respect of the moral damages suffered.   The Government is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violation of the applicant’s rights.     2) GENERAL MEASURES   The violation in the present case occurred as a result of the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974, which has subsequently been superseded by a new Code. The European Court noted also that there had been certain incoherence in the manner in which the Supreme Court of Cassation had applied the relevant domestic provisions (§ 50 of the judgment).   The new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 2006, expressly exempts convicted person from any interpreter fees incurred during the criminal proceedings (see Article   189   §   2). The domestic courts apply this provision in line with the requirements of the Convention.   The Government is of the view that the problem giving rise to the present violation has been solved and that there is no need of further general measures.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.